Slashdot Mirror
Sony PS2 To Sport Netscape and SSL
joq writes "Just when you thought you'd heard it all... RSA Security Inc. announced it will market a development tool to equip software for a PlayStation2 game console developed by Sony with Netscape and SSL. The new development tool will allow game developers to equip online games for PS2 with SSL or other encryption means to prevent such games from being copied. Sony will sell a PS2 compatible hard disk drive unit with a broadband communications capability and is expected to sport Netscape equipped with SSL. The browser would not be necessary, however, for using game software with SSL because such game software itself processes an amount of money charged with users of networked games through a credit card number securely. Full story is on NikkeiBP and also the RSA press release"
First: don't flame me if I'm blatantly, clearly way off in wackyland on this one. I'm just going off what I've read in the linked articles.
The only mention of "Netscape" comes in the NikkeiBP article, a single mention in a paragraph midway down the page claiming Sony will likely sell a hard drive unit with Netscape and one of the SSL technologies pre-loaded. No mention of Netscape is found in the RSA press release, and there is nary a mention of the version of NS expected to be included.
My first thought was "why wouldn't Sony go with a customized version of IE?" Several ideas quickly leaped to mind; no Windows infrastructure in the PS2, MS will be competing directly with Sony within months, MS hasn't said a word about such a deal, and other, less-developed nagging thoughts.
I don't know why Sony would go with an ancient, cruddy codebase like the 4.x series. Outside of the Windows and Mac platforms (and maybe not even then), the Java support is atrocious, and the browser is extremely prone to crashing. Unless Sony uses the Source and does some mad fixing of the 4.x code, I don't really see them using 4.77 in the PS2.
Netscape 6 was a brainfart. Enough said.
The only possibilities that make anything close to sense in my mind:
1) Sony uses the 4.x codebase, does some fixes and tweaking
2) Sony uses the Mozilla/6.xx codebase, doing any necessary massive bugfixes to the code, but possibly waiting for the 6.5 release, which I've caught the rare passing mention of in Bugzilla. I have no idea if Netscape ever plans on doing another branch from the Mozilla trunk; I personally think that would be a very wise idea, giving a big boost to the Mozilla project's profile, as well as Netscape's credibility, no thanks to that 6.0 business.
2b) Sony uses Gecko and builds a simple browser around it, including PSM 2.0. Better option for them, IMO.
3) Sony doesn't bother with Netscape, the NikkeiBP report is off on that point, and Sony has their own plans that no one will be able to guess at.
Take your pick, can't wait to see how this development turns out...
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
SSL is not merely about encryption of data in transit, it's also a cryptographically secure method of authentication. Imagine that each and every PS2 DVD-ROM is pressed with a unique SSL certificate. Now, when playing online games the game server can require that all client PS2's authenticate themselves with this certificate. If the same certificate is used more than once at the same time then all connections using this certificate are kicked from the server and probably banned. The advantage of doing this with SSL as opposed to just serial numbers is that it has been tried and tested in the field and shown to be secure cryptographically, and the data is encrypted in transit so replay attacks are useless.
It doesn't prevent copying per se but it makes playing online with a copied game all but impossible. Given how much of a part of modern gaming is concerned with playing online, this is a major deterrent to copying.
Remember how many quarters you spent on video games in arcades when you were a kid? I know I lost countless quarters to joust, defender etc. Well, heads up... with they way they are pushing this kind of technology, within a year or two, computer games will probably be on a pay per play scenario, and if you have no internet access, then you will probably miss out on the vast majority of games. And if you do have internet access, then you can expect to pay $1 and up a pop for a game. Just wait and see. As horrible as this sounds, I bet it becomes all too regular.
Time for some tasty Shiner Bock!
This is important in case this technology becomes usable by the RIAA or similar agencies. Otherwise I take a look at this and see several reactions that become occasionally troublesome.
Most consumers will not care too much as long as the games don't cost too much.
Some will get not care, as long as their parents buy them the game.
Certain folks will take joy at a new toy to crack.
Some will be outraged that they actually have to pay money for a game since they will not be able to copy the game.
and then there are those that will figure out some way to apply this to their favorite hot button issue whether it applies to the situation or not, be it civil rights, crime in the inner city, or the massive Australian-American trade imbalance problem [joke]
(sigh) somehow I do not think of this as being very important by itself.
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Internet gaming relies on the fact that its enjoyable to play a game with and against lots of people whom you've never really met. I never play online at the moment for a number of reasons, but the biggest is absolutely because there are far too many childish idiots who enjoy nothing more than ruining it for people who are there for a good time. Make them pay, and (hopefully) the lamer ratio would drop to an alltime low. Also, the game creators would be more pressed to make a game fair and reasonable to keep the gamers happy. It might cost a bit more to play, but I'd certainly pay to keep the losers out.
http://twitter.com/onion2k
I noticed this because I went and read the "full story" in the hope of getting slightly more readable English than in the posting, only to get the posting all over again, including the charming sentence:
If you read it three times, with your head on your left shoulder, it eventually kind of makes sense, even if I still don't quite see the connection implied by the use of the word "because". But I kind of like the idea of "...an amount of money charged with users...".
I don't mind this kind of text from sources from the Far East --- it makes it kind of a sport (used as a noun) to decode the stuff --- but straight from slashdot? Really.
Ron Obvious
total FUD.
Scenario: Half-Life 2 comes out in a pay-per-use model like you describe.
You know what would happen?
Everyone would stick to Half-Life.
Most games in the PC gaming market (95%+) are just updates and revamps of games already out.
No one will lose their individual rights in that type of manner for no major improvement.
I would rather play Quake DM as regular then play Return to Castle Wolfenstein with a pay per play model.
Are they saying that you can purchase games for the playstation securely on the playstation, and download them (without being copied by other pplz) ... what would prevent someone from copying it once it was in a non-encrypted state on the local drive? (I presume that they will not be encrypting multistation game sessions ... after all, performance is, i think, a higher priority than encrypting the session)
Or is this another one of those pay as you play schemes?
-CrackElf
"Blake is an idealist, Jenna. He cannot afford to think." - Kerr Avon, Star One, Blakes 7
...seems a little like trying to marry a global distribution of pet food and a toaster.
If you have studied any history of gaming, you know that network access over consoles has ranged from a moderate to tremendous failure, from the early NES-enabled modems to the Dreamcast web. Obviously this is not what they plan to use SSL for, as Sony has a lot of corporate resources to do at least a little research with.
What SSL can be to them is an extension of their "set top box" theory of gaming (whose benefits we won't go into... *cough* 3D0 *cough*). This is their first step to being able to sell movies, music, or other traditional media that corporate-types understand, as well as the rather odd proposition by Square of selling character upgrades and new levels.
None of this seems likely, yet, to take off. Can you imagine typing in a credit card number with a dual-shock controller? It's heinous enough as is with a qwerty. And trying to stuff a DVD quality movie through even the most modern Cable modem is like trying to haul the Statue of liberty with the latest Dodge Durango and being surprised that it still doesn't fit.
Even things like character upgrades in traditional media have to be given away for free (without requiring a secure connection) or else must be so substantial as to consider it an expensive add-on and a separate purchase. None of this, of course, has any sort of real gameplay use or reason.
I guess the real story here is how Sony is paying all of its attention to the doomed convergence of paid movies, e-commerce, and consoles and how little attention it is paying the things that will matter in the coming console wars: good second and third party support and a wealth of fun, exclusive games.
The ______ Agenda
GreyPoopon
--
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?