Sony PlayStation Network Back Up Now, Supposedly

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Sony PlayStation Network Back Up Now, Supposedly

Posted by timothy on Sunday December 28, 2014 @05:18AM from the nothing's-perfect dept.

jfruh (300774) writes Sony's PlayStation Network, brought down in a Christmas Day hacking attack, now seems to be back online. Of course, Sony also said the same thing on Saturday, but outages and problems lingered. From the article: At around 1 a.m. U.S. Eastern Time on Sunday, Sony declared its online gaming platform fixed and, as it had done the day before, blamed the problems on a distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack. ... The company jumped the gun early Saturday when it trumpeted that the PlayStation Network was gradually getting back to normal, announcing the good news at around 4 a.m. via its Ask PlayStation Twitter account and triumphantly changing the PlayStation Network status to “online” in the support website a few hours later.

75 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Up down up down by Snotnose · 2014-12-28 05:21 · Score: 2

In San Diego PSN was fine for me Christmas day (when I only logged on to see if I could), down all day the 26th (which was the 1 day of the week I'd planned to play CoD all day), and back up yesterday (27th). Haven't tried it today.
Lesson goes unlearned by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 05:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

Playstation owners should demand their money back, NOW! And the rest of you dummies have to stop enabling this practice of requiring a network connection to play a damn game! How stupid can you be? This is the same idiocy that made paying to receive a phone call a marketable thing. You crave electronic trinkets with blinky lights! You people are sick!
1. Re: Lesson goes unlearned by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 05:51 · Score: 0
  
  I was playing all day on the 26th. My ps4 worked fine. People can demand refunds on their silly online service, but those of us who just play single player games don't care.
2. Re:Lesson goes unlearned by GNious · 2014-12-28 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  This is the same idiocy that made paying to receive a phone call a marketable thing.
  I sorta disbelieve there are anyone stupid enough to pay to RECEIVE a call - that is simply beyond most common levels of stupidity.
  (also, never seen that advertised)
3. Re: Lesson goes unlearned by Karlt1 · 2014-12-28 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  You're right. It's totally asinine to require network access to play a game with other people that are not sitting next to you....
4. Re: Lesson goes unlearned by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 06:28 · Score: 0
  
  What about requiring a network connection to play people sitting right beside you?
5. Re: Lesson goes unlearned by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 06:42 · Score: 0
  
  Not every game requires that, and the ones that do, well I'd put that on the publisher/developer vice Sony (unless they are the pub/dev).
  Girlfriend got me a copy of Diablo 3 for PS4 for holiday, even though the network was down we had 4 people smashing in skelly skulls well into the night.
6. Re:Lesson goes unlearned by Calydor · 2014-12-28 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  Call Collect?
  The US SMS system? Technically not a call, but still communication over your phone.
  An argument could be made that half of your phone subscription payment is for the ability to receive calls.
  
  --
  -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
7. Re:Lesson goes unlearned by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 06:55 · Score: 0
  
  Mobile phone users in the United States pay to receive calls on their mobile phones.
  It's absolutely bonkers.
  **If I'm out of date on this advice please let others know. When I was there two years ago this is how my phone (T-Mobile) worked and from talking to friends and colleagues it sounded like it was the norm.
8. Re:Lesson goes unlearned by sjames · 2014-12-28 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  And yet that's how it works for cellphone minutes.
9. Re:Lesson goes unlearned by dAzED1 · 2014-12-28 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  it's still how it works. Apparently the GP doesn't even think about it but yeah, they pay to receive phone calls.
10. Re:Lesson goes unlearned by ledow · 2014-12-28 07:18 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Only in the US.
  Paying to receive is RIDICULOUS. Just because it's the norm for you, doesn't mean it's not still ridiculous.
11. Re:Lesson goes unlearned by sjames · 2014-12-28 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  I fully agree. I was just pointing out that such a crazy thing actually does exist.
12. Re:Lesson goes unlearned by GNious · 2014-12-28 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  Call collect? Thats your #1 example? yeah, it is paying to receive a call, but you're reaching from the get-go.
  If Americans are stupid enough to pay to receive SMSes, that's just them being silly - in the last 20 years, I've never heard of that over here.
  As for subscription, again mate, you're reaching.
13. Re:Lesson goes unlearned by GNious · 2014-12-28 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  Then question becomes, do someone also pay to make to make the calls, that "Mobile phone users in the United States pay to receive" ?
  Over here I've never heard of this, outside of some (not-wholly-dissimilar) attempts that were shut down immediately.
14. Re:Lesson goes unlearned by beelsebob · 2014-12-28 09:31 · Score: 1
  
  I've been busily playing my games for the past few days... You don't need a network connection to play any of them.
15. Re:Lesson goes unlearned by beelsebob · 2014-12-28 09:32 · Score: 2
  
  It's pretty common in the US. Crazily, for a while, it was even common to have to pay to receive SMSes, which you couldn't even opt out of receiving.
16. Re:Lesson goes unlearned by khellendros1984 · 2014-12-28 10:01 · Score: 1
  
  If Americans are stupid enough to pay to receive SMSes, that's just them being silly
  Most plans include unlimited SMS services, but some cheaper ones charge per-message sent or received. There's no reason to insult a nationality over something as stupid as having different phone plans. There are plenty of worthier things to insult America and Americans over, after all.
  
  --
  It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
17. Re: Lesson goes unlearned by adolf · 2014-12-28 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  In the US, we have a long tradition of paying both to place and receive mobile phone calls and SMS.
  We also have a long tradition of receiving landline calls for free, and also placing them for free to numbers in a specific local area. We have never had a custom of paying to answer a landline.
  Nor, I must point out, have we ever had a custom of paying more to call a mobile number than any other number, as I understand is/was commonplace in some other parts of the world. When I would pick up my landline to dial a local number, it would cost me nothing additional, as with any other local number.
  (these lines are blurred now that inexpensive landline-esque service is generally unlimited and flat-rate within the US, and many people opt for mobile plans that are similarly unlimited and flat rate (aside from data)).
  
  --
  Kid-proof tablet..
18. Re:Lesson goes unlearned by westlake · 2014-12-28 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  Playstation owners should demand their money back, NOW! And the rest of you dummies have to stop enabling this practice of requiring a network connection to play a damn game!
  
  The console has long since become more of an Internet-enabled home media center than a single purpose video game player --- and most of the video games these days have a online multiplayer component.
19. Re:Lesson goes unlearned by khellendros1984 · 2014-12-28 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  Depends on the plan. I've got unlimited texts and data, don't pay to send or receive calls from mobile devices, and have 10x more minutes for landline calls than I've ever used in a given month. I don't know about payment models for pay-as-you-go plans, because I've never used one, and almost no one that I know has ever had a plan like that.
  
  --
  It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
20. Re: Lesson goes unlearned by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2014-12-28 10:43 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
21. Re:Lesson goes unlearned by drinkypoo · 2014-12-28 12:41 · Score: 1
  
  Paying to receive is RIDICULOUS.
  What? It doesn't matter if you're making or receiving the call, the same amount of traffic is flying through the air, and the network has to do just as much work. The negotiation part of the call is brief, it's the actual call that takes up bandwidth and it takes up the same amount no matter who makes the call. I know I said that already, but it bears repeating because you not only said what you said but you also got modded up for it.
  There's lots of things which are ridiculous about cellphones in the USA but paying whether you make or take a call actually makes sense. We could argue about whether the prices are justified, but there's no technical justification for not paying for incoming calls.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
22. Re:Lesson goes unlearned by nedlohs · 2014-12-28 13:55 · Score: 1
  
  Why is it ridiculous?
  Someone has to pay. Why does it make sense for the caller to pay instead of the callee, considering that the callee is the one who decided to be on a cellphone rather than a local number?
  And of course having the callee pay also means that the caller doesn't have to know if a number is a cellphone or not, and so you don't need a dedicated pool of cellphone numbers and can instead just use numbers from the usual pool.
23. Re:Lesson goes unlearned by donaldm · 2014-12-28 19:01 · Score: 1
  
  Paying to receive is RIDICULOUS.
  What? It doesn't matter if you're making or receiving the call, the same amount of traffic is flying through the air, and the network has to do just as much work. The negotiation part of the call is brief, it's the actual call that takes up bandwidth and it takes up the same amount no matter who makes the call. I know I said that already, but it bears repeating because you not only said what you said but you also got modded up for it.
  You are quite correct with regard to send and receive traffic however that is not the issue here if someone sends me an SMS unsolicited or otherwise why should I have pay for it?
  
  There's lots of things which are ridiculous about cellphones in the USA but paying whether you make or take a call actually makes sense. We could argue about whether the prices are justified, but there's no technical justification for not paying for incoming calls.
  Please explain to me how paying to receive a call makes sense unless you are given a "call collect" option?
  
  --
  There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
24. Re:Lesson goes unlearned by donaldm · 2014-12-28 19:18 · Score: 1
  
  Why is it ridiculous?
  Someone has to pay. Why does it make sense for the caller to pay instead of the callee, considering that the callee is the one who decided to be on a cellphone rather than a local number?
  And of course having the callee pay also means that the caller doesn't have to know if a number is a cellphone or not, and so you don't need a dedicated pool of cellphone numbers and can instead just use numbers from the usual pool.
  You are right someone has to pay but why should a person who gets unsolicited SMS's or phone calls have to pay?
  I can understand and accept a "call collect" option but paying for receiving unsolicited SMS and phone calls is IMHO open to abuse by those sending said messages/calls to you.
  
  --
  There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
25. Re:Lesson goes unlearned by donaldm · 2014-12-28 19:33 · Score: 1
  
  I've been busily playing my games for the past few days... You don't need a network connection to play any of them.
  I never had any problems playing single player games as well and there is usually allot more of them than on-line or on-line only games. Of course playing games like Demon's Souls or Dark Souls with an unpredictable network is actually quite good for the beginner since it means you have a smaller chance of getting invaded although you probably won't get much help either. Still those games I have mentioned are fully playable unlike on-line only games.
  For people who only like on-line only games (PC or console) you always have to put up with what can be an unpredictable internet and the possibly of server outage.
  
  --
  There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
26. Re:Lesson goes unlearned by donaldm · 2014-12-28 19:40 · Score: 1
  
  Playstation owners should demand their money back, NOW! And the rest of you dummies have to stop enabling this practice of requiring a network connection to play a damn game! How stupid can you be? This is the same idiocy that made paying to receive a phone call a marketable thing. You crave electronic trinkets with blinky lights! You people are sick!
  Wow the troll is strong with this one. I wonder if he (could be a she but I doubt it) has a PS3 or PS4? I do agree with "This is the same idiocy that made paying to receive a phone call a marketable thing" although thankfully I live in a country were this is not allowed.
  
  --
  There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
27. Re: Lesson goes unlearned by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 20:12 · Score: 0
  
  All that really matters is total cost of ownership. But I'm sure there are exceptions.
28. Re: Lesson goes unlearned by tesdaburys · 2014-12-28 20:12 · Score: 1
  
  All that really matters is total cost of ownership. But I'm sure there are exceptions.
29. Re:Lesson goes unlearned by ledow · 2014-12-28 21:53 · Score: 1
  
  The justification is not technical.
  It's social, and commercial.
  If someone sends me something that I never asked for, I have to take specific measures against any and all such messages or I will be charged against my will.
  That's RIDICULOUS.
  The alternative is that the sending party that wants to spam me has to spend the money to do so, and their unwanted spam is nothing more than an annoyance (not a monetary cost on my part too). Which is how the rest of the world works.
  Sorry, but I am not going to hold funds, or have a limited amount of minutes, which can be depleted at any time by random third parties without my authorisation.
  Who pays for the lines and service in between? Who gives a shit? That's the provider's problem. We're talking about who can cost ME money (or remove some of my allowances).
  Hell, you are paying for WRONG NUMBERS to ring you. It's just not sensible. And, as you point out, the technical side means there's NOTHING stopping your provider working the other way around (like the rest of the world). But they are profiteering from unwanted spam being sent to your phone, because YOU are paying for each call, not the spammer, or themselves.
  Hell, in the EU, we are currently in the process of making even roaming calls be free-to-receive (and same-price-to-make) as local calls because of the artificial (and false) market involved in a German company operating in the UK charging a UK user more to make calls when they are in Germany.
  Pay to receive is not a technical issue. Thus there's nothing stopping them working like every other provider in the world. Pay to receive is a con on YOU and if you don't see that, you really need to look into what they (sometimes the same company) are providing in other countries.
30. Re:Lesson goes unlearned by drinkypoo · 2014-12-29 00:07 · Score: 1
  
  Hell, you are paying for WRONG NUMBERS to ring you
  No, I am not, because I do not answer calls from numbers not in my phone book. I let them go straight to voicemail. I probably don't want to talk to them anyway — if it's important, I'll get an email. The only exception is if there's an emergency, but I'm not emergency personnel anyway.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
31. Re:Lesson goes unlearned by nedlohs · 2014-12-29 00:46 · Score: 1
  
  For SMSes sure but for phone calls they choose to answer or not.
  I've lived in countries with both systems. I see advantages to each, with neither of them be "RIDICULOUS".
32. Re:Lesson goes unlearned by drinkypoo · 2014-12-29 01:24 · Score: 1
  
  You are quite correct with regard to send and receive traffic however that is not the issue here if someone sends me an SMS unsolicited or otherwise why should I have pay for it?
  I would argue that no one should ever have to pay for SMS, unless they are generating multiple SMS per second. But hey, that's just me.
  
  Please explain to me how paying to receive a call makes sense unless you are given a "call collect" option?
  I did that in my prior comment.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Hacking attack... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 05:32 · Score: 0, Troll

... seriously /.?
And... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 05:46 · Score: 1

...Nothing of value was lost.
Get off your asses, you sedentary neck-beards.
1. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 08:17 · Score: 0
  
  what if i have no legs, you cretin.
Sony blaming everything on hackers.... by The+New+Guy+2.0 · 2014-12-28 06:00 · Score: 1

DDoS have been pretty much solved by now... haven't Sony learned the difference between too many legit users and a hack?
1. Re:Sony blaming everything on hackers.... by rmdingler · 2014-12-28 06:11 · Score: 2
  
  They know how to protect the vulnerability.
  They won't spend to fix it unless they're shamed into it, and possibly not even then.
  If they don't fix it now, they're saying they don't give a shit.
  
  --
  Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
  Ernest Hemingway
2. Re:Sony blaming everything on hackers.... by Frosty+Piss · 2014-12-28 06:28 · Score: 1
  
  They know how to protect the vulnerability.
  They won't spend to fix it unless they're shamed into it, and possibly not even then.
  If they don't fix it now, they're saying they don't give a shit.
  From the mouth of an expert, right?
  
  --
  If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
3. Re:Sony blaming everything on hackers.... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 06:47 · Score: 0
  
  Care to share the vulnerability? I've not seen anything anywhere to state a vulnerability in PSN or XBLive that was exploited to cause the outages.
4. Re:Sony blaming everything on hackers.... by rmdingler · 2014-12-28 15:31 · Score: 1
  
  I'm a confidant of a girl who's cousin's uncle is an expert,
  so I have it on quasi-reputable authority.
  
  --
  Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
  Ernest Hemingway
5. Re:Sony blaming everything on hackers.... by donaldm · 2014-12-28 19:57 · Score: 1
  
  DDoS have been pretty much solved by now... haven't Sony learned the difference between too many legit users and a hack?
  Hmm I suggest the following starting point for an introduction to DDoS and even possible solutions. You should also know that the Microsoft network access was also impacted as well so it was not just Sony.
  
  --
  There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
6. Re:Sony blaming everything on hackers.... by The+New+Guy+2.0 · 2014-12-31 01:27 · Score: 1
  
  What I'm saying is that downtime from too much bandwidth on Christmas is most likely due to users with free time and newly opened boxes. Too many paying customers looks like a DDoS but isn't exactly one.
Yes, it's running. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 06:20 · Score: 0

I have been playing Destiny since the lunch time. In EU.
Why demand money? I want extended service. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 06:26 · Score: 0

I want 72+ extended service for the 72+ hours this service was unavailable. Plain and simple, refunding a couple of pennies will be much more expensive undertaking for SONY than just pressing a couple of buttons in their accounting dept.
1. Re: Why demand money? I want extended service. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 07:54 · Score: 0
  
  Agreed
The network is a juicy target by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 06:37 · Score: 0

Think about it. All those cracking machines conveniently networked. If I were a bad guy or a government I'd want to turn into my own personal bot net very badly.
Let this be a lesson by Vandil+X · 2014-12-28 06:59 · Score: 2

I've been a fan of physical game carts/discs that are 100% playable offline. Getting a new PS4 or Xbox One that "bundles" a download code for a game is a rip off if you have to download the game and have it call home every time you want to play. So when the online component is down, you can't download or play the downloaded game since it can't phone home. That's ridiculous. I skipped the Xbox One and PS4 for reasons like this. Even more so: 10 years from now when the authentication server goes offline, your Xbox One or PS4 game is dead. Whereas, I can still pop in my favorite NES, SNES, Genesis, N64, PSOne, Saturn, DreamCast, GCN, and PS2 games without any worry for an internet connection. (And select PS3 and Xbox 360 games.) Vote with your money, people.

--
Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
1. Re:Let this be a lesson by Snotnose · 2014-12-28 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  This is also how Uverse works. Lose your cable/internet, you can't even watch shows already recorded. When I move in a few months I'll be getting another Tivo.
2. Re:Let this be a lesson by dAzED1 · 2014-12-28 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  that's quite the sense of entitlement you've got there - yes, sometimes things aren't working. So what, go outside, or maybe spend time with your familiy. Secondly, you might look into getting broadband - people are able to get decent speeds now, we no longer have to use dialup (ie, downloading something shouldn't be a concern anymore). 10 years from now I won't have a PS4 or XBox One, just like I don't play on my old atari anymore either (though I do play clones on my PC sometimes...which satisfies the nostalgia without needing rooms full of shelves to store various types of media and players). I *am* voting with my money - I'm getting something more convenient, reliable, flexible, etc. Yes, in fact, I said reliable - have you never had your house burn down, or robbed? I've had both happen, both things wiped out the entire library of everything. Now though, I log on with the various services and boom - my library is still right there. Amaaaaaazing stuff. While Sony and Microsoft should have been able to prevent the issues, they're still the victims in the situation - how about we put at least /some/ of the blame on the people who did it?
3. Re:Let this be a lesson by qwak23 · 2014-12-28 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  I more or less posted this on the last thread, I can't speak for Xbox One as I do not have one, but the PS4, it's games, disc or download work just fine without a network connection as long as THE GAME doesn't require an internet connection.
  During the outage I only had 2 games I was unable to play, Destiny (where online is kinda the point) and Plants vs. Zombies Garden Warfare because for whatever reason EA requires a network connection on that game even though it has a local play mode. The rest worked, regardless of whether or not they were on disc or downloaded.
4. Re:Let this be a lesson by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 08:13 · Score: 0
  
  people are not confused over who to blame, except maybe morons. i don't like the righteous tone of you 'go out and do something' assholes. i spend a lot of time outside so i don't disagree with that, but people can do wtf they want and don't need some prick telling them how to live. you don't know them, so fuck you. good for you that newer services carry what you want, maybe you're as willfully ignorant of what those services are missing as you are broadband speed availability. if people can't get fibre, then what? smart ass come on, you've got the answers. maybe we move in with you if you promise not to be a calamity.
5. Re:Let this be a lesson by marsu_k · 2014-12-28 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, this. Single-player games worked just fine (even PS+ games as I've set my console to be primary). The only exception was DA:I - for some reason it wants to contact "Dragon Age servers" on launch, even when not playing multiplayer; but that was rectified by just disabling networking on the PS4. I suppose this would have worked in PvZ as well.
6. Re:Let this be a lesson by Rinikusu · 2014-12-28 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  My favorite console is still my GBA Micro.
  
  --
  If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
7. Re:Let this be a lesson by qwak23 · 2014-12-28 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately, didn't look closely at the package when we bought it, on the box it states that a connection is required. Getting home we found out that PvZ doesn't just require a connection, it requires PS+, I'd have passed on it for that reason alone except my significant other really, REALLY wanted it and isn't as "principled" as I'd sometimes wish ;)
  We ended up getting a PS+ account in order to play it, maybe it would have worked after initial sign in with networking disabled, I suppose I could always test it.
8. Re:Let this be a lesson by marsu_k · 2014-12-28 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  Pretty much any online game requires PS+ - there are some exceptions, most (all?) subscription-based games don't need it, and some F2P games work without it. Personally, I hardly ever do online multiplayer, but still find PS+ to be worth it for the free (ok, this being /. so surely someone will nitpick about it - not free as you are paying a subscription but you get the point) games and cloud saves. YMMV.
9. Re:Let this be a lesson by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 09:40 · Score: 0
  
  How entitled I am that when after buying something and bringing it into my own house that I expect to use it when I want.
  Apologists like you are why we don't own anything anymore. Why the PS3 has linux compatibility removed on an update never to come back. Why apple products that after they are no longer supported officially remain locked by the company (not to mention the accusation of them screwing with the os to make the battery die faster).
  I'm not renting these devices, I own them. I know this because when they break and are no longer under warranty I cannot return them for another.
  You want you games in "the cloud" (god I hate that steve-jobs-era-bullshit-term) then great, its your choice, 100%. Now imagine a world where not everybody wants what you want.
10. Re:Let this be a lesson by qwak23 · 2014-12-28 10:35 · Score: 1
  
  I've got no issue with PS+ being required for online multiplayer as I was a longtime xbox live subscriber with the 360, my only gripe with the game is that it has local offline split screen multiplayer and PS+ is required to access that mode as well.
11. Re:Let this be a lesson by antdude · 2014-12-28 11:42 · Score: 1
  
  This is why I pretty much gave up with these online requirements.
  
  --
  Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
12. Re:Let this be a lesson by drinkypoo · 2014-12-28 12:38 · Score: 1
  
  that's quite the sense of entitlement you've got there
  When you plan for the future, you get to look smug.
  
  Yes, in fact, I said reliable - have you never had your house burn down, or robbed?
  Yay insurance.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
13. Re:Let this be a lesson by tlhIngan · 2014-12-28 18:47 · Score: 1
  
  I've been a fan of physical game carts/discs that are 100% playable offline. Getting a new PS4 or Xbox One that "bundles" a download code for a game is a rip off if you have to download the game and have it call home every time you want to play. So when the online component is down, you can't download or play the downloaded game since it can't phone home. That's ridiculous. I skipped the Xbox One and PS4 for reasons like this. Even more so: 10 years from now when the authentication server goes offline, your Xbox One or PS4 game is dead. Whereas, I can still pop in my favorite NES, SNES, Genesis, N64, PSOne, Saturn, DreamCast, GCN, and PS2 games without any worry for an internet connection. (And select PS3 and Xbox 360 games.) Vote with your money, people.
  Uh, on both Xbox Live and PSN, there is offline play even on downloaded games. On Xbox Live, the console that buys the game and downloads it gets to play it offline without signing into Xbox Live. That license can be changed to a new console once a year. Of course, any console can play the game if the user is signed into Xbox Live.
  For PSN, you can authorize a PS4 and that PS4 can play it offline as well. All other PS4s have to be signed in. You can change the authorized PS4 as well.
14. Re:Let this be a lesson by mrchaotica · 2014-12-29 02:19 · Score: 1
  
  Wanting to be able to use your own damn property is "entitlement?!" Fuck you!
  
  --
  "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
15. Re:Let this be a lesson by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-29 02:29 · Score: 0
  
  I have a PS4 and the majority of my content has been purchased and downloaded via the Playstation store. I had no problem playing the campaign on call of duty during the outage. Once the system has the license info I believe it is good to go.
16. Re:Let this be a lesson by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-29 04:11 · Score: 0
  
  I just got a PS4, and I don't mind their set up. I could play fine without connecting. The downloaded games needed a connection to download, but after they were done, I could play them on the system I marked as my home system without being connected. This setup doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
  I do agree in principle on anything that needs to always be connected to play, but I consider it a minor annoyance for myself. It pisses me off when we see self righteous douche-bags bringing the system down just to show everyone how horrible the system supposedly is. The only time I've ever had trouble connecting to any gaming server is when someone has decided to make an example of the system they don't like to convince us that we shouldn't like it either.
17. Re:Let this be a lesson by tlhIngan · 2014-12-29 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  I more or less posted this on the last thread, I can't speak for Xbox One as I do not have one, but the PS4, it's games, disc or download work just fine without a network connection as long as THE GAME doesn't require an internet connection.
  During the outage I only had 2 games I was unable to play, Destiny (where online is kinda the point) and Plants vs. Zombies Garden Warfare because for whatever reason EA requires a network connection on that game even though it has a local play mode. The rest worked, regardless of whether or not they were on disc or downloaded.
  Xbox Live is similar - the console you download a game on is marked as the primary console for that download, and thus that game can be played offline. TO play it elsewhere requires signing in.
  Even a disc-based game works fine - it won't be able to download an update, but it will let you install and play it offline just fine.
  Now, last I checked, PvZ was mostly a multiplayer game, so it requires online access for matchmaking and all that fun stuff (and required membership). I know because I wanted to buy it, but lack of a single player mode basically turned me off it.
18. Re:Let this be a lesson by qwak23 · 2014-12-30 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  While it doesn't have a single player mode, you can "sim" one by creating a match and setting it to invite only, it just irks me that it includes an offline local multiplayer component that still requires a network connection.
Stop calling a DDoS 'hacking' by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 07:17 · Score: 0

It's like calling driving down the freeway racing.
Anyone with a reasonable amount of cash/stolen cards or even the simplest knowledge of VB and some time can launch a DDoS.
Kinda fixed... by XxtraLarGe · 2014-12-28 07:35 · Score: 1

Last night, I tried to add a code on their website for my 1 year PSN membership renewal.The card says you can add the number on a PS3, PS4 or PC. When I entered it on my MacBook Pro, I got an error saying "You can't add this card on a PC." It took about 15 minutes for the PlayStation store to load on my PS3, and then I was able to add the code. It makes no sense that I couldn't add the card from the web page though, since it said specifically that I should be able to on the card. Whatever.

I was more disappointed that I could't access Netflix or YouTube from my PS3 without PSN access though, which seems ridiculous. Thankfully, we also have an Apple TV, which DOESN'T require that you be signed into iTunes to access other apps.

--
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
You can play games offline by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 07:55 · Score: 0

I don't understand why people kept saying they cannot play games offline.
1) Authorize your Playstation as primary device in Device Setting
2) Simply just disable network connection in the Network Setting
I only did number 2 above and I can play all the games offline.
Doesn't Look To Be Up To Me by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 08:00 · Score: 0

When I try to log into PSN I get an "Under Maintenance" page:
https://secure.us.playstation.com/maintenance/index.htm?locale=en_US&postSignInURL=https://secure.us.playstation.com/logged-in/my-profile/&cancelURL=http://www.playstation.com/en-us/connect
So my brand new PS4 continues to be a really expensive brick! This is ridiculous. While I believe the primary blame lies with the attackers who committed a crime, Sony is clearly incompetent in their network engineering. How many times has the PSN been under attack in the last few years? Didn't they lose tons of customer data just a couple years back?
While I don't play the always-on type of games, simply trying to interact with the console without a working PSN account is impossible. Most of the tools on the console are disabled without PSN access; the browser doesn't work; the iPad second screen functions don't work; and games that are single player lose functionality (Shadows of Mordor for instance).
Unbelievable.
"Supposedly"? by wonkey_monkey · 2014-12-28 09:19 · Score: 1

Sony PlayStation Network Back Up Now, Supposedly
Supposedly? How about finding out whether it is or not, and then telling us? If you really can't wait to make a story of the things you hear other people saying, the word to use is "reportedly."
"Supposedly" just makes you sound clueless.
You wouldn't catch the BBC tacking on "supposedly." And at least Fox have the chutzpah to just state the things they're not sure of as fact.

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Left right left right B A Start by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 11:02 · Score: 0

Wait, was that Sony or Konami?
Lesson goes unlearned by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 14:02 · Score: 0

Anonymous troll get highest Insightful rating on slashdot article.
The future is here.
Get your own backup! by thedonofdons · 2014-12-28 21:43 · Score: 1

No idea when somebody's "CLOUD" would rain!
http://popularbloggingtopics.c...