Slashdot Mirror
Sony Blames 'External Intrusion' For Lengthy PSN Outage
Several readers have noted that outages on Sony's PlayStation Network have prevented online play for the past few days. The company has now blamed an 'external intrusion' for the trouble, saying they took down the network to "conduct a thorough investigation and to verify the smooth and secure operation of our network services going forward." Some suspect an attack by Anonymous, who declared war on Sony earlier this month, but Anonymous has disavowed knowledge of such an attack. Meanwhile, others are asking whether Sony should compensate users for the inability to play PS3 multiplayer modes, and even single-player modes on a few downloadable games.
I guess it's great for the content providers and their DRM, but when I can't play a single player game because either their servers are down, or I don't happen to have a connection at the time is annoying and stupid. (I don't have a Playstation, but several single player games on Steam behave in the same, or similar, way; e.g. f1-2010 I can't save progress without the internet because apart from steam, which launches the game just fine, there is the crazy Live-Games for Windows (or whatever it's called). Why I can't save progress is beyond me as the save games appear to be local files, but that's just how it is.
This has been the best time that my 15 year old son and I have had since the PlayStation arrived in December. With the network dead, we went bicycling and bowling (his top score was 134); he showed me how to solve the last layer (well the OLL) of the Rubik's Cube.
I deeply thank whoever did this, and I wish you only the best!
-CS in Berkeley
What blows my mind is that people are asking whether or not they should be compensated, when will the service will be back up, and who's responsible, but not so much "is my credit card that the PSN stores secure?" How is this not the first thing Sony gives an update on when they officially say this is due to an attack?
I've been looking at the comments on every post I see about this. At first I was hoping for an answer, and now I'm mostly just curious. This seems to be the very least of everyone's concerns.
This is why liberals have mostly been in charge since the 1960s.
Yeah, don't let a little thing like 30 years of Republican presidents vs 15 years of Democrats since 1960 get in the way of your "facts".