Support NeoGAF

[Psychotext]

But the exploit came from the OtherOS. Which made Sony remove it from non slim models.

That wasn't the argument, the argument was that until Sony said they were removing other OS from the PS3 (which happened as of the slim), then people like geohot weren't interested.

That they eventually removed it from all PS3s is a different argument.

 

[RustyNails]

If people bought a slim, they bought it knowing it did not have OtherOS on it. Him fucking around with otherOS in phats is what promted Sony to remove it from the phats.

I wonder if that has any legal bearing in this lawsuit. It could certainly make for an interesting background to the case.

 

[Kalnos]

Call us, Sony fanboys or whatever you want to call us, as long as it's to keep assholes like hackers, pirates, cheaters out of my online gaming and gaming industry then I'm there.

This case won't do anything to stop any of this, and at best, it will cripple one person financially. Also, using the word hacker negatively and calling people that hack assholes is either hilarious, or a misunderstanding of the word.

Regardless, I believe the saying/quote "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither." is applicable to some degree here. Although the quote is an impossibility, and disgusting idealistic.

 

[demosthenes]

I would assume the objections from ardent fans of the PS3 are twofold:

1) This will enable online cheating in games
2) This could negatively impact Sony's financial situation, which could negatively impact Sony's support of the PS3

And those are real concerns. But again, no one is saying that your right to play games online or buy any and all PS3 games is in jeopardy. Perhaps it would be slightly less pleasant (perhaps!) but that's really the extent to which this is realistically plausible. Therefore, this really is a case of "inconvenienced" vs. "I had my consumer rights taken away." And many people would rather have the other people's rights be taken away than be inconvenienced themselves.

I know you've stated this before, but I'd like it stated once more: can you explain why?

As far as I know, OtherOS was removed without much a reason, I think that's a dick move. For the few people that genuinely did use it, the loss I'm sure really did suck. But that's in the past now.

First if I bought something it is mine, I can do whatever I want with it. With that said, as far as I know, and I could be wrong in my information, Hotz has helped in the hacking of the PS3 and helped others to do so. This is where the problem comes up. Sony is literally obligated to go after him from a shareholder point of view. Hotz has helped enable piracy. I'm not coming at this from the angle of piracy = loss of sales, but rather from the point of view that Sony owns these games and they're supposed to be protecting them and those that pirate them do not have a right to them.

For my own view, I know it may not be popular here but I would rather have a safe and secure system that can't do homebrew than a system that could do homebrew. The more the PS3 is hacked the more vulnerable PSN will be. The more vulnerable PSN will be the more Sony will have to spend on keeping it safe.

 

[flyinpiranha]

Whether it's wrong or right of what he did is up for debate. But a court of law giving Sony the right to go through his PC seems ... odd.

Money can buy you everything but 1st place it seems.

 

[Opiate]

I certainly agree that there is a failure on the part of resalers to properly advertise the requirements of their products. An informed customer would no-doubt understand the limitations of opting into a firmware lock, but the uninformed will, with current disc return policies, find themselves with a product they cannot utilize or return for full refund and i certainly agree that situation is morally wrong.
Did Sony's update create the situation? yes. should sony's rights be limited because of a failure within the retail market? no. publishers should instead clarify the requirements of their product on the store shelf.

I mean the ToS agreements when buying the PS3 hardware itself: you are correct that you cannot expect any and all firmware to run any and all games, but this applies in principle to any type of custom firmware. If I am running official firmware, those rules becomes significantly less clear.

Customers were told at the purchase of their system that it could play all PS3 games and that it could run OtherOS. It is implied that you can not expect it to run all PS3 games if you choose to run custom firmware: however, it is also implied that as long as you stick to official products, you will be able to play all PS3 games. Again, Terms of Service can change, but those terms affect services such as PSN (And I see very few people arguing that homebrewers should have access to PSN), but it does not cover goods, such as the games intended to run on Playstation 3 hardware.

 

[NullPointer]

Is it impossible to create custom firmware that doesn't use Sony's stack? If it is possible, wouldn't that be the better way to go? You could then bypass any DMCA and piracy issues.

Customers were told at the purchase of their system that it could play all PS3 games and that it could run OtherOS. It is implied that you can not expect it to run all PS3 games if you choose to run custom firmware: however, it is also implied that as long as you stick to official products, you will be able to play all PS3 games. Again, Terms of Service can change, but those terms affect services such as PSN (And I see very few people arguing that homebrewers should have access to PSN), but it does not cover goods, such as the games intended to run on Playstation 3 hardware.

Does this honestly make a difference? In a hypothetical world where Sony and/or retailers provided compensation for removing OtherOS, would that then put GeoHot's actions in a different light? Would he be morally wrong to hack the system in the way he had?

 

[RyanDG]

Not sure I see the relevance. That is after the release of the PS3 slim.

That wasn't the argument, the argument was that until Sony said they were removing other OS from the PS3 (which happened as of the slim), then people like geohot weren't interested.

That they eventually removed it from all PS3s is a different argument.

Prior to the announcement of the Slim, the entire PS3 hacking scene was looking at the OtherOS as the primary area for vulnerability in how to hack the PS3. It was seen as the easiest access to exploit the hypervisor as well as to free up the GameOS operations for the PS3. Geohot was working on the PS3 (not seriously according to him) during this time and stopped for a while. He then started back up once the announcement of the slim came without the otheros in order to try to open up the otheros on the older PS3s.

Read up on what was being done on trying to free up the otheros for graphics processing that was occuring in 2008. I would search for the links real quick, but I'm about to run to a valentine's day dinner. If I don't see them posted by the time I get back I'll search and bring them up for you (when it comes to the speculation and work being done to hack otheros prior to the slim's announcement).

 

[RyanDG]

Is it impossible to create custom firmware that doesn't use Sony's stack? If it is possible, wouldn't that be the better way to go? You could then bypass any DMCA and piracy issues.

No it's not impossible, and this is what I would love to see the community do. However, its much easier to piggy back off official firmware, which is unfortunate because it calls into questions the motives of the hacks and also artificially limits the ceiling of what can be accomplished in the PS3 scene. I'm sure someone will eventually overhaul a completely redesigned firmware without Sony code, but it probably won't happen for a while.

 

[Psychotext]

Prior to the announcement of the Slim...

See post 201. Was a different argument. That it was an attack vector was clear, but this particular part of the discussion was limited to why geohot and some others specifically began targeting the PS3 after the release of the slim (when geohot started he said that his one intention was to bring otheros to the slim... which does have a certain irony now).

Edit - I see you've now quoted 201, but I'm not sure you follow.

 

[NullPointer]

No it's not impossible, and this is what I would love to see the community do. However, its much easier to piggy back off official firmware, which is unfortunate because it calls into questions the motives of the hacks and also artificially limits the ceiling of what can be accomplished in the PS3 scene. I'm sure someone will eventually overhaul a completely redesigned firmware without Sony code, but it probably won't happen for a while.

At least at that point there would be no doubt as to one's property rights. Seems like a much better way to proceed that to exploit security flaws in Sony software.

Imagine that - true homebrew without all the crappy side effects.

 

[cakefoo]

I dunno, he paid $299(?) for the PS3 he should be able to do with it what the fuck he wants.

I bought a flamethrower, I should be able to do with it what the fuck I want!

 

[Boombloxer]

Sony should be going after hackers (by banning them) and pirates (by suing or pursuing legal action). Those are people who legitimately deserve scorn.

See, I agree with this, and I also agree with them going after someone who would be one of the main culprits for possible piracy/cheating online etc.

Can they put the genie back in the bottle? No. But it is their right to basically make the person responsible miserable who's going to cost them money.

If someone went and posted Google's search algorithm and the method to duplicate it, you really think Google wouldn't react the same way?

 

[Vorador]

Is it impossible to create custom firmware that doesn't use Sony's stack? If it is possible, wouldn't that be the better way to go? You could then bypass any DMCA and piracy issues.

It's not impossible, but it would be like reinventing the wheel. Nobody is going to do it since it would require to reverse engineer every piece of code. Too much work.

 

[Opiate]

As far as I know, OtherOS was removed without much a reason, I think that's a dick move. For the few people that genuinely did use it, the loss I'm sure really did suck. But that's in the past now.

Except it's the valid reason to crack the system and allow custom firmware. It isn't in the past: it is relevant to current discussion.

First if I bought something it is mine, I can do whatever I want with it. With that said, as far as I know, and I could be wrong in my information, Hotz has helped in the hacking of the PS3 and helped others to do so.

Indirectly, or explicitly? To my knowledge, thus far, any assistance to piracy has been indirect. He showed people how to get custom firmware and restore OtherOS, which has the side effect of enabling piracy. Avoiding the gun analogies used far too often in this thread, this is equivalent to showing someone how to program software, which indirectly allows them to also write viruses.

But again, that explanation is what Geohotz has stated explicitly. It's possible that evidence in the trial will reveal that he was being deceptive and that his goal was specifically to enable piracy, in which case he has indeed committed a criminal act. I doubt that will happen, but it's possible.

This is where the problem comes up. Sony is literally obligated to go after him from a shareholder point of view.

They're obligated to go after pirates and hackers.

For my own view, I know it may not be popular here but I would rather have a safe and secure system that can't do homebrew than a system that could do homebrew. The more the PS3 is hacked the more vulnerable PSN will be. The more vulnerable PSN will be the more Sony will have to spend on keeping it safe.

This again gets back to the selfish angle I was describing before: you would rather other people lose their cherished customer rights (which you also have, but don't care about) than be inconvenienced. Custom firmware/OtherOS/homebrew users have no interest in taking away your customer rights to play games: you, however, have explicitly stated that you'd prefer they lose their rights if it means a more streamlined experience for yourself.

Does this honestly make a difference? In a hypothetical world where Sony and/or retailers provided compensation for removing OtherOS, would that then put GeoHot's actions in a different light? Would he be morally wrong to hack the system in the way he had?

Absolutely? This is essentially asking "does it make a difference if he had a justifiable reason or not?" If his motivation was piracy, then he deserves to be prosecuted just like every other pirate. If his motivation was to restore functionality taken away after the point of sale and after the terms of service were agreed upon, then his justification is completely acceptable -- perhaps even moral.

 

[Kalnos]

This again gets back to the selfish angle I was describing before: you would rather other people lose their cherished customer rights (which you also have, but don't care about) than be inconvenienced. Custom firmware/OtherOS/homebrew users have no interest in taking away your customer rights to play games: you, however, have explicitly stated that you'd prefer they lose their rights if it means a more streamlined experience for yourself.

Yes, and the only difference between many of the posters in this thread is that some are willing to sacrifice some freedom for "security", and others aren't. It's a no-win situation for the company, in this case Sony, as they will be forced to take the side of losing freedom.

 

[Opiate]

See, I agree with this, and I also agree with them going after someone who would be one of the main culprits for possible piracy/cheating online etc.

Can they put the genie back in the bottle? No. But it is their right to basically make the person responsible miserable who's going to cost them money.

If someone went and posted Google's search algorithm and the method to duplicate it, you really think Google wouldn't react the same way?

Google should and would. You don't purchase Google search, and even if you did, it's a service, not a physical good.

I have the right to do what I want with the things I purchase and own. I do not have the right to manipulate goods I do not own, or any service of any kind.

 

[phosphor112]

Looks like they changed their stance.

"We have analyzed the RIAA’s claim that music downloads are causing a substantial
decrease in music sales. Our macro data confirm their fear: we find that
music downloading could have caused a 20% reduction in music sales worldwide
between 1998-2002. While this is only a crude estimate, we believe that it is a
good reference value that other studies, especially microeconometric ones, could
use to assess the exact substitution that has taken place between CDs and MP3s.
Our analysis also reveals that other factors than music downloads on file-sharing
networks are likely to be responsible for the decline in music sales in 2003."

Looks like that all that matters. Piracy does indeed hurt companies. You can't deny it. By the way, you are fucking annoying for thinking piracy has zero negative repercussions toward companies.

 

[NullPointer]

Absolutely? This is essentially asking "does it make a difference if he had a justifiable reason or not?" If his motivation was piracy, then he deserves to be prosecuted just like every other pirate. If his motivation was to restore functionality taken away after the point of sale and after the terms of service were agreed upon, then his justification is completely acceptable -- perhaps even moral.

You make a fair point re: piracy, but kindof side stepped the question. If Sony compensated consumers for the loss of OtherOS, would GeoHot still have a moral reason to hack and distribute his findings in the way he has?

I happen to think this "restoring lost functionality argument" is a red herring, and that GeoHot would be applauded here for his efforts regardless.

 

[timetokill]

You make a fair point re: piracy, but kindof side stepped the question. If Sony compensated consumers for the loss of OtherOS, would GeoHot still have a moral reason to hack and distribute his findings in the way he has?

I think they would have to allow for full refunds of the product at the price at which it was purchased.

 

[webrunner]

Can I juts say something

How really dumb is it to put yourself in the crosshairs of an international corporation with a public internet alias based on your real name.

 

[The Faceless Master]

i heard he uses TrueCrypt

 

[Mama Robotnik]

i heard he uses TrueCrypt

That would make this very interesting, as its still unbreakable.

Can only imagine the look of glee when Sony finally get their hands on his hard drive, only for it to change to tears as the system asks for a 39-digit password that George says he has forgot.

 

[Pandaman]

I mean the ToS agreements when buying the PS3 hardware itself: you are correct that you cannot expect any and all firmware to run any and all games, but this applies in principle to any type of custom firmware. If I am running official firmware, those rules becomes significantly less clear.

Customers were told at the purchase of their system that it could play all PS3 games and that it could run OtherOS.

which at the time of purchase, it could. [with exceptions for old hardware that float in the channel for awhile]. for obvious reasons, i object to any definition of 'all' that includes titles yet to be released. games are not sold to the ps3 market as a whole, they are sold to subsets of the ps3 market that are willing to meet firmware requirements.

however, it is also implied that as long as you stick to official products, you will be able to play all PS3 games.

lets say a firmware update comes out that reduces the memory footprint of the official ps3 OS and a game is released that takes advantage of this. obviously that game could not function properly on a system with firmware that predates the update, would you then contend that the firmwares release was morally wrong?

 

[spwolf]

I have the right to do what I want with the things I purchase and own. I do not have the right to manipulate goods I do not own, or any service of any kind.

but you dont have the right to do anything you want with things you purchase and own. You really do not. You have to respect IP.

 

[Opiate]

You make a fair point re: piracy, but kindof side stepped the question. If Sony compensated consumers for the loss of OtherOS, would GeoHot still have a moral reason to hack and distribute his findings in the way he has?

I happen to think this "restoring lost functionality argument" is a red herring, and that GeoHot would be applauded here for his efforts regardless.

I wasn't trying to sidestep the question. The answer would be that his position would be significantly impaired.

He might still be able to rely on the fact that it also enables any other kind of homebrew, which he should also be able to do -- and be able to tell others how to do.

Sony's smoking gun would be proof that Hotz' real goal was to enable piracy. If they can prove that was his intention, then he has committed a criminal act. Just as all pirates and hackers deserve prosecution and banning (respectively). Here are a few analogies which I think are all applicable:

1) It is okay to show someone how to program software, because there are lots of uses for software -- even though it also enables that person to write viruses. However, if my intention from the start was to help that person write a virus, then I may be liable.

2) It is okay to show someone how to use a gun, because there are lots of uses for guns -- even though they can also be used to kill people. However, if my intention from the start was to help that person kill people, then I am definitely liable.

3) It is okay to sell people VHS recorders, as there are lots of uses for them -- even though they can also be used to pirate movies and television shows. However, if my intention from the start was to help people pirate TV and movies, then I am liable.

The list could go on, but you can see the point. Doing something that indirectly allows other people to do illegal things is not in itself illegal. Or immoral.

 

[Kalnos]

but you dont have the right to do anything you want with things you purchase and own. You really do not. You have to respect IP.

IP has nothing to do with this though...?

 

[RustyNails]

Can only imagine the look of glee when Sony finally get their hands on his hard drive, only for it to change to tears as the system asks for a 39-digit password that George says he has forgot.

HIDING EVIDENCE?

OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE!

 

[spwolf]

You make a fair point re: piracy, but kindof side stepped the question. If Sony compensated consumers for the loss of OtherOS, would GeoHot still have a moral reason to hack and distribute his findings in the way he has?

I happen to think this "restoring lost functionality argument" is a red herring, and that GeoHot would be applauded here for his efforts regardless.

once again, his original hack led to the removal of otheros in fats... he made plenty of public statements at the time.

 

[NullPointer]

Here's a whacko solution for Sony. Subsidize the cost of the PS4 console by forcing a low subscription model (PSN+), with members "leasing" the console as part of the membership fee, similar to how some cable providers work.

Consumers get a lower cost console, while Sony retains ownership over the hardware and services.

Could something like that work in today's marketplace?

I wasn't trying to sidestep the question. The answer would be that his position would be significantly impaired.

He might still be able to rely on the fact that it also enables any other kind of homebrew, which he should also be able to do -- and be able to tell others how to do.

Sony's smoking gun would be proof that Hotz' real goal was to enable piracy. If they can prove that was his intention, then he has committed a criminal act. Just as all pirates and hackers deserve prosecution and banning (respectively). Here are a few analogies which I think are all applicable:

1) It is okay to show someone how to program software, because there are lots of uses for software -- even though it also enables that person to write viruses. However, if my intention from the start was to help that person write a virus, then I may be liable.

2) It is okay to show someone how to use a gun, because there are lots of uses for guns -- even though they can also be used to kill people. However, if my intention from the start was to help that person kill people, then I am definitely liable.

3) It is okay to sell people VHS recorders, as there are lots of uses for them -- even though they can also be used to pirate movies and television shows. However, if my intention from the start was to help people pirate TV and movies, then I am liable.

The list could go on, but you can see the point. Doing something that indirectly allows other people to do illegal things is not in itself illegal. Or immoral.

Sorry I implied you sidestepped the question on purpose - I'm bad with, ya know, words.

but I take it that if I parsed your response correctly, that he would still be morally right to crack the PS3, regardless of OtherOS removal? That's the gist I'm getting here, in which case we're back where we started here: Exactly what rights you have to a console you purchase, specifically in terms of firmware and exploiting security flaws.

 

[Slayven]

That would make this very interesting, as its still unbreakable.

Can only imagine the look of glee when Sony finally get their hands on his hard drive, only for it to change to tears as the system asks for a 39-digit password that George says he has forgot.

I am pretty sure he could be held in contempt of court if doesn't give them the password.

 

[Psychotext]

HIDING EVIDENCE?

OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE!

In the UK now you can and will (it's already happened) go to jail if you don't tell the courts / police any encryption keys you have. Forgetting is no defence.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/03/ripa-decryption_keys_power/

 

[TheSeks]

Could something like that work in today's marketplace?

For idiots, sure.

For me? LOL PC AND STEAM. SUCK IT SONY.

 

[Opiate]

which at the time of purchase, it could. [with exceptions for old hardware that float in the channel for awhile]. for obvious reasons, i object to any definition of 'all' that includes titles yet to be released. games are not sold to the ps3 market as a whole, they are sold to subsets of the ps3 market that are willing to meet firmware requirements.

You shouldn't object, because it's implied at the point of sale. It is, in fact, one of the primary reasons customers might choose a closed architecture over an open one.

lets say a firmware update comes out that reduces the memory footprint of the official ps3 OS and a game is released that takes advantage of this. obviously that game could not function properly on a system with firmware that predates the update, would you then contend that the firmwares release was morally wrong?

No. What does the user customer lose by updating firmware, in this instance? He gains advantage and loses nothing. In this case, it is Sony granting concessions (i.e. reducing their memory footprint), which they have presumably done voluntarily and for their own reasons.

Similarly, if every PS3 owner and all unanimously and voluntarily conceded OtherOS functionality to Sony, then there would be no objection.

A better (and more complicated) example that would better serve your argument would be something like a RAM addon for the PS3, or even a peripheral like Move. Those examples are far murkier. Again, however, it represents additional functionality, not subtracted functionality, so my answer to this example would be "I don't know."

 

[spwolf]

IP has nothing to do with this though...?

it has everything to do with it.

buying an BMW 335d does not give you right to crack its engine management software and post it online.

buying Crysis 2 PC DVD gives you right to back it up, but does NOT give you right to post it online and share with others.

Fact is that buying something does not mean you own it completely. You never do.

 

[FINALFANTASYDOG]

I have the right to do what I want with the things I purchase and own. I do not have the right to manipulate goods I do not own, or any service of any kind.

Well technically you don't have the right to break the DMCA.

Opiate - just curisous in your opinion how could you go about this and still have sony retain their rights, aka allow sony to limit what you do with the system/(which they obviously want to do)

Not going to happen, but if you signed a life-time lease with sony, that said you are merely renting this forever, yet that right could be taken away if you don't use the system properly, would that be an acceptable solution?

 

[timetokill]

That would make this very interesting, as its still unbreakable.

Can only imagine the look of glee when Sony finally get their hands on his hard drive, only for it to change to tears as the system asks for a 39-digit password that George says he has forgot.

I'm picturing him being played by Gerard Butler right now

Opiate - just curisous in your opinion how could you go about this and still have sony retain their rights, aka allow sony to limit what you do with the system/(which they obviously want to do)

Sony doesn't have that right in the first place. (Well, I guess it's in contention, but only the lowest scum would argue they have rights to your property). ... at any rate, you'd be granting them the ability to do something that could have incredible repercussions on consumer rights in the future.

Not going to happen, but if you signed a life-time lease with sony, that said you are merely renting this forever, yet that right could be taken away if you don't use the system properly, would that be an acceptable solution?

That would be acceptable because the use of the PS3 would then be part of a service, and you would be agreeing to abide by the terms of the service. As it is now, it's a product that you buy and then own, and it no longer belongs to Sony, meaning you can do whatever you want to it because it's your property.

 

[theignoramus]

No it's not impossible, and this is what I would love to see the community do. However, its much easier to piggy back off official firmware, which is unfortunate because it calls into questions the motives of the hacks and also artificially limits the ceiling of what can be accomplished in the PS3 scene. I'm sure someone will eventually overhaul a completely redesigned firmware without Sony code, but it probably won't happen for a while.

so this is what's illegal in practically every country and the legal basis for a lawsuit, right? I can only use closed software in a manner that is approved by the company with the IP rights.

 

[spwolf]

Here's a whacko solution for Sony. Subsidize the cost of the PS4 console by forcing a low subscription model (PSN+), with members "leasing" the console as part of the membership fee, similar to how some cable providers work.

Consumers get a lower cost console, while Sony retains ownership over the hardware and services.

Could something like that work in today's marketplace?

but they already do subsidize the cost of console.

 

[Opiate]

Sorry I implied you sidestepped the question on purpose - I'm bad with, ya know, words.

but I take it that if I parsed your response correctly, that he would still be morally right to crack the PS3, regardless of OtherOS removal? That's the gist I'm getting here, in which case we're back where we started here: Exactly what rights you have to a console you purchase, specifically in terms of firmware and exploiting security flaws.

I think the answer gets significantly murkier without OtherOS in the picture.

Again, custom firmware applications are the valid, justifiable reason to crack a closed system (And tell others how to crack it). In this case, we aren't just talking about typical homebrew applications, but also functions which were once available on the system but were then taken away.

With it, his justification for cracking the system seems clearly valid to me. Without it, it's... less valid. Perhaps not invalid: perhaps not valid. I'm less sure, as I don't always think in black and white. But that's not the situation we're in, so I don't feel compelled to come to a concrete conclusion.

 

[The Faceless Master]

I am pretty sure he could be held in contempt of court if doesn't give them the password.

password for what?

if he's set it up correctly, there won't be any questions like that...

 

[Opiate]

Well technically you don't have the right to break the DMCA.

Opiate - just curisous in your opinion how could you go about this and still have sony retain their rights, aka allow sony to limit what you do with the system/(which they obviously want to do)

Not going to happen, but if you signed a life-time lease with sony, that said you are merely renting this forever, yet that right could be taken away if you don't use the system properly, would that be an acceptable solution?

Obviously it would be -- but only if they made this clear at point of sale. And I do mean clear, and not hidden on page 43 in small print of the "owner's" manual.

Of course, that would demolish their sales, I suspect. But it would give them greater leverage in situations like this. Would Sony prefer to sell even less consoles, but have greater control of the customers they attract? Or would they prefer to give their customers more options and increase sales? At the moment, Sony wants to have their cake and eat it too.

 

[Mizzou Gaming]

At what point does SONY start suing themselves because one could argue SONY has brought more attention to the exploit than all the other sources combined by trying to sue whatever they can. Not only that, isn't SONY just making themselves one big giant target for hackers in the future.

Its essentially SONY's own reality show, HACKER IDOL. Next season be the first to crack the NGP and SONY's very own legal department will take you on an all expenses paid trip to fame and fortune.

 

[slider]

Obviously it would be -- but only if they made this clear at point of sale. And I do mean clear, and not hidden on page 43 in small print of the "owner's" manual.

Of course, that would demolish their sales, I suspect. But it would give them greater leverage in situations like this. Would Sony prefer to sell even less consoles, but have greater control of the customers they attract? Or would they prefer to give their customers more options and increase sales? At the moment, Sony wants to have their cake and eat it too.

It's a weird reversal. This gen I'd been impressed with Sony's "open-ness" and other things too. USB peripherals (with limits of course), HDD easily changeable, free online, (crappy) browser, Other OS (hmm). It's that last one that's caused them so many problems. I do feel kind of sorry for them.

 

[The Technomancer]

I've barely followed all of this: can someone explain how these hacks and custom firmware are different from what people were doing with the Wii already? Were Nintendo idiots not to similarly sue, are Sony being huge dicks about this, both, neither?

 

[-Pyromaniac-]

Don't think Nintendo is in as good a position as Sony is to do this kind of thing.

 

[Opiate]

It's a weird reversal. This gen I'd been impressed with Sony's "open-ness" and other things too. USB peripherals (with limits of course), HDD easily changeable, free online, (crappy) browser, Other OS (hmm). It's that last one that's caused them so many problems. I do feel kind of sorry for them.

In a way, I do too. In addition, I think George Hotz seems like a real jerk. That doesn't mean that a jerk can't be right sometimes, too, and I think that's the situation here.

 

[TheChillyAcademic]

The comparison of this OTT response to a child pornography siezure, and the Judge's apathy to the observation, is equally worrying.

It takes a special kind of person to even begin to think to equate these two issues together let alone write it down.

Congratulations.

Edit: This is not directed towards Mama Robotnik but the person who actually said it.

 

[Dash Kappei]

GAF users are fucking insane, I'll tell you that.

 

[[Nintex]]

Don't think Nintendo is in as good a position as Sony is to do this kind of thing.

Nintendo picks their battles, they fought against those flash cards, got them banned in certain regions and bulldozed Chinese production sites. Small stores/factories producing/selling those things were fined for thousands and sometimes even millions of dollars. But it's hard to get anything from those shady businesses.

They've tried going up against the Wii homebrew too but haven't been succesful so far. They did manage to 'profit' from it in some sort of sleazy Nintendo way. Enter Super Smash Bros. Brawl, the US version was playable with a freeloader and other means in Europe up untill a week before it launched. Nintendo released an update along with the PAL version of Brawl to block the freeloader and other basic mostly old homebrew stuff. So if you live in Europe you probably own two copies of Super Smash Bros. Brawl...