My guess is, like 90% of businesses, they have multiple backups, set up monitoring for when a backup job fails, store them on redundant disks in different locations, dutifully write them on tape too, in addition to a copy in cloud storage, and have never ever tested restoring one.
The last time this happened was when Anonymous hacked PSN and took them down for a month after they went after Geohotz(cant remember the spelling) for jailbreaking/reverse engineering the ps3.
Radio silence like before as well. I hope they weren’t breached again.
Why would you want them to be breached? The only people that are going to be negatively affected by that are the users who was involved in the breach.
Yes and no. Sony would face repercussions for lax security, and while it would indeed affect the consumers, Sony would be at the epicenter. Forgive me for not giving a shit to what happens to Sony, and if they did in fact get breached I'll be there with some popcorn enjoying some Shadenfreude.
What I’m saying is that you have to look at the bigger picture. Not only Sony would be affected by that, back in 2011 when they were breached consumers were charged in the estimated tens of millions of dollars range. A figure that Sony only ended up having to repay about 15 million in settlement fees for after a solid year and a half.
Additionally, Sony still managed to go up in profit that year, despite the PR nightmare out of it. Going up from 1.2 billion after operating costs in 2010 to 1.4 billion after operational costs in 2011 and still made 1.1 billion in 2012 ( after the 172 million in damages was done)
I understand hating big business and their practices as much as the next guy, but I have a hard time getting a sense of satisfaction knowing that at the end of the day the company itself isn’t going to be impacted by the hack more than a small itch, while fucking over the everyday consumer significantly more
…You want their security to be bad enough that they get hacked, so that they’d have to face repercussions for having bad security? What?
How about they just don’t have bad security and people don’t risk having their private data stolen?
Nice to know you’d sit there with popcorn watching people who just want to play video games suffer, a small price to pay for you to hurt Sony it seems, who I guess you hate for some reason.
That’s your body suffering from whiplash as we’re once again back in the era where you never know whether someone is telling the truth or not when they make a wild claim about the president like that.
Sony’s uptime delusions crumbling faster than a PSN auth server.Fourteen hours of radio silence while charging for the privilege of digital serfdom? Masterstroke. Remember 2011’s month-long outage? At least we got free games as consolation—now they’ll just send thoughts and prayers via shareholder memos.
”Premium service” my ass. Paywalls for multiplayer, cloud saves held hostage, and a walled garden rotting from neglect. But hey, keep funding Zuck’s yacht repairs while your PS5 gathers dust. The 2011 apology tour is dead—2025’s mantra is ”fuck you, pay more.”
Reboot the servers, Jim. Or just admit the cloud was a screensaver all along.
Yep, just like serverless computing that doesn’t use servers, or how games benefit heavily from the blockchain and companies are always hiring blockchain devs despite not knowing what the blockchain is or why they need blockchain devs other than because they heard they need it.
I never played the first one. I just watched a story recap.
The gameplay isn’t janky just brutally difficult and unforgiving. It goes for realism above all. I’m really liking it but I’m only maybe halfway through the story.
Damn reading the impact this has is some combination of hilarious and horrifying to see people bought into a service like this. If it was free or simply a monthly sub like Netflix I could kinda understand. But a sub to use things you also had to buy? Fuck that.
Yep, all my GoG games would be installable without internet if I have the installer downloaded, games without DRM bought from the devs directly like Factorio would also work just fine. Loads of games are available outside of steam, some are even on github for free.
Not sure if this is still the case, but with Steam it used to be that if you didn’t put the client into “offline mode” ahead of time the client wouldn’t open, let alone allow you to launch a game once the connection was lost.
At least in 2013 when I started using Steam more seriously if your connection dropped it would prompt you asking if you wanted to switch to offline mode. And I know this because I had Steam on a laptop that I carried in my bag hibernating and I didn’t had internet in some places I went to. So that has been fixed for over a decade.
they fixed that, but if you are connected to WiFi that blocks steam it will refuse to launch your games even after you disconnect from the WiFi. I think this is to prevent piracy I guess??
I needed a software that I bought on steam for schoolwork and I couldn’t use it because steam was having a panic attack over my schools wifi. Inst of preventing piracy I went and pirated the software to not have that issue LOL
Better than every year or so no one can play the games they supposedly “bought” due to some technical hiccup for a random yet lengthy amount of time than some percentage of people be able to more easily play our games without paying us. -some Sony/gaming industry stooge probably
In all seriousness, people need to stop being so willing to put up with this sort of easily foreseeable failing with the current way of doing digital goods. If I can’t use it without the blessing of someone else it is not buying, it is borrowing, and that severely impacts the value proposition for me personally.
Technical issues WILL happen. It is the nature of the beast, it is just terrible engineering to build what is essentially dead man switches into your customers products.
This one and FairGame$ are both screwed, and they’ll mark the end of an era for Sony and live service. What’s funny too is that Bungie was purchased in large part for being experts in making successful live service games, but it reminds me of something in investing where those who appear to be very smart after a string of successes are compared to being “expert coin flippers” who just got heads a number of times in a row. As we’ve gotten a peak or two behind the curtain after the purchase, it certainly looks like Bungie was only lucky.
Bungie is a lot like Bioware in that regard: Some real bangers on the resume, but none very recently. It should serve as a reminder that companies don’t make games, people do. If the right people aren’t involved, or too many of the wrong people are, past successes are entirely meaningless.
It's not only the people, it's the people at specific timepoints, nobody wants a remake of skyrim and another iteration of assassin's creed is only gonna get a lukewarm reception. Games are lightning in a bottle, their successes are basically impossible to replicate because there's so many variables at play.
That’s what weirds me out when people say things like: i will always pre order the new (insert developer name) game because i trust them. It’s not the shareholders or the suits who make the games, it’s the people, and these people may work somewhere else 10 years later.
It is a little funny that even after Sony backpedaled hard on live service after Concord, the one studio they bought to make live service games instantly started failing too. Destiny hasn’t been doing too great either. Sony have been very unlucky this generation.
Maybe, but their own actions helped. Everybody said that the 12 live games was a terrible idea. They replaced the guy behind the idea, but they're still pushing marathon without any single player nor co-op.
This smells like another Concord, to the point where I will be absolutely surprised if it lasts even 2 months.
I think Bungie still has experience making successful live service games, Destiny 2 has been a massive success for Bungie. The issue with Bungie is that they've forgotten how to release good games. Destiny 1 released kinda meh, but a year after launch started crawled back to being generally well received. Destiny 2 release (followed by the Curse of Osiris expansion) almost killed the studio, a year after launch started crawling back into being great and only in the last years really dropped off (when resources were pulled away from Destiny to Marathon). It feels almost like there are some head up their ass lead designers at Bungie who just won't listen to feedback and release a shitty game. Then the live team takes over the project, listen to actual feedback and fixes the stupid shit that should've been fixed the first time around.
Even with Marathon they had that event where streamers (and some other media people) got to play the game at Bungie and then Bungie asked for their feedback and when they got feedback on some really stupid things (like not being able to take off attachments from guns) they just went "We know, that's intentional". They're deliberately making design decisions that anyone with experience within the genre would instantly say "that's a bad idea". I don't know whose head needs to be pulled out of their ass but if Bungie doesn't want to release Marathon as a flop they need to do it quickly.
On a slightly different topic. I love how some people got to experience Marathon and Arc raiders in close proximity. Prior to the playtest people were cautiously optimistic about Marathon but Arc raiders evoked no emotion in anyone. And now it's more than reversed. People are praising Arc raiders and Marathon is seen as a lost cause.
I can name plenty of shooters that don’t let you take attachments off of guns. That might not be your best example of ignoring feedback, because the presence or omission of that feature can be for any number of very good reasons.
I was talking in the context of extraction shooters. I can't think of a single extraction shooter where you could add attachments but not remove them. I've also yet to see anyone familiar with the extraction shooter genre think it's a good idea. If you think it's a good idea you're free to defend it.
Live service garbage has costed the industry billions in losses and costed tens of thousands of devs their jobs. Fad chasing in general.
Everyone wants to make the fortnite killer or overwatch killer. They set billions of dollars on fire and get nothing for it. And it’s the devs who pay the price. Not the c-suite dipshits who threw all that money in the fire pit.
I mean they also created a ton of jobs and it‘s not like devs working on single player games don‘t face layoffs and bonuses fraud. Besides Overwatch 2 killed Overwatch already.
Way to make a truly bad faith argument or perhaps you are lost or something. To clarify: Are you implying it‘s any different for AAA SP games? Because that’s the discussion here.
Yes, imo live service games are very bad for the people who buy them and the people making it.
They are only there to make cash. And they make this cash through terrible predatory monetization - loot boxes, microtransactions, season passes. These companies actually want to run casinos that target the most vulnerable and children. You can argue that people wouldn’t want to work on this if they had a choice.
There’s almost always very little artistic value.
At least with sp AAA, you can gain a cult following if you have an interesting gameplay, or story. what are you doing with a live service one? Nothing, just offering the same thing that someone else has already created in another flavour, just to chase a trend. What this means is that they’re more likely to fail and not for the fault of the devs for sure.
They’re also bad for preservation of games. All live service games die, you can’t play them once support ends. You paid 60 dollars to rent a game? (Though I suppose that’s true with sp always online games as well and it’s not directly a bad thing for the dev)
Though… you maybe sort of right, the Industry is so bad right now that it doesn’t even matter whether you are working on sp or live service, you are in some sort of hell regardless…
I‘m just going to say that the distinctions between the two you‘re laying out here seem irrelevant to the discussion to me. I am not arguing about a season pass or preservation of games. Again, that is not what this discussion is about. This is about the developing side of games where these things don‘t mean anything. To give an example of what I mean: World of Warcraft employed and paid more people over a longer period of time than most AAA games.
I don’t know of the statistics, so yes, I can’t say for sure sp employs more people than live service. But in my opinion live service games are more risky and harmful to the industry as a hole.
But my original comment was about how it doesn’t matter if they created jobs or not because they are trying to replace everyone with AI. Coders, designers, artists… So it doesn’t matter sp or live service. They want to not employ anyone and run casinos
forbes.com
Najstarsze