fps_d0minat0r said:
By 'worth hacking' I never refered to the interface and online community. I fully understand why someone could come to that conclusion, but that wasnt my point. Maybe I should have made it clearer that the basis of my point was PSN being more lucrative than nintendo's network (having more active paying customers) and therefore worth hacking (even though they didnt get anyone's money in the end). With the mindset your in, whatever I say you will just twist it into what you want it to mean so go ahead. |
Oh, so you don't think you've typed anything of questionable veracity? You honestly think your credibility remains in tact after what you've posted?
Also, I made it clear that I got your point. I responded with this:
"Saying the value in Nintendo's network is puney compared to others is like saying the value of the Milwaukee Bucks is tiny compared to the LA Clippers. The former just sold for $550 million. To even be considered a candidate for acquiring the latter, you have to open discussions at $1 billion minimum. The value of the Bucks is puny compared to the Clippers, but is $550 million not a big deal all of a sudden?"
You're essentially saying that because PSN is more lucrative than Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection (what Wii and DS used) and/or the Nintendo Network (what Wii U and 3DS use), then Nintendo's network isn't worth hacking at all. What I obviously need to make more clear is that "less valuable" does not mean "not at all valuable." You're basically saying, "Anything less valuable than PSN is not valuable." Is PSN the baseline for e-criminals now?
You also implied Nintendo wouldn't have been able to stop Anonymous from taking over its network. How the hell do you know? How do you know whether it was even attempted? Do you have anything to prove that claim with? Your only basis is that Nintendo's online features suck and that it is obviously worth less than PSN and XBL. You think making claims such as this worth taking seriously? Puh-lease.