Only one PS3 game I heard that had cheating, Modern Warfare 2, and it was a problem till Activision fixed it. 

The big deal angle early on with the PS3 was that it was supposed to be more open than the XBox.  You could surf the Net, install Linux and do a bunch of neat things that you couldn't on the Microsoft or Nintendo offering.  Shoot, you could also use your own harddrives if you like.  It was to be open.  Well, I guess things changed when Sony began to lose to Microsoft.  So, with Linux getting pulled, people who bought in early felt Sony changed the rules on them.  Does Sony have the right to change the rules?  I would say that they do.  But I would also expect that the community could choose to balk at it, if they want to also.

Are you fucking kidding me?  They aren't trying to attack users, it wasn't their goal to do this?  What the fuck did they think would happen if they attacked psn and brought it down?  Did they think anything except us users being affected would happen?  Fuck you anonymous, don't tell me you're on my side, because you are a bunch of douchebags that aren't on anybody's side.

Companies will do whatever they can get away with in the market.  Look for the music industry, for example, to shift to a subscription model.  Sony is doing this now with Playstation Plus also.  You keep paying Sony to access more and more content.  You borrow the content, you don't own it.  Actually, according to licensing agreements, the way software is based, you do NOT own the software, you merely have a license to use it. This license can change to be one where you pay to renew it also.  In the case of MMOs, it is that way also.   And if companies act like Electronic Arts does, their model is to pull the server support every few years on their games, so you can't play them online any longer, so it is like renting.  Want to play Middle Earth Conquest online now?  You can't, because the server support is gone. 

What you have seen is, first, the crack down on piracy (the rationale behind going after GeoHotz).  After this, the industry is looking to go after used game sales, again showing that you don't OWN the software, you only pay for the right to use it.  You see with Netflix there is the trend to pay for usage basis, and not own anything.  That is happening, and the game industry feels it can get away with it, they will do that.  You will rent the title, not own it.  Go on OnLive to see how this works also.

Only thing that stops companies from not shifting to a rental model is that consumers won't stand for it.  But, if they start accepting it, then look for it to happen.

What part of denying they had something to do with it has slipped your notice?  Just because the original poster tried to spin what happened that way doesn't mean it is how it happened.

And no, Anonymous isn't on anyone's side.  Anonymous is a loosely connected of community that operates behind masks, and will express sometimes contradicting opinions.  There is some shared values between the individuals, born out of the culture of the Internet.  Anonymous just is.  Whether or not you feel a culture of hiding behind masks and acting should be stamped out and everyone be identified all the time, and everything that is done in private shoiuld be revealed to the world, would be up to you.

I don't think everything done in private should be revealed, but everything this group does is criminalistic, and they deserve to be put in prison, because they are up to no good, and are nothing more than cyber terrorists.

I think everyone's being to hard on Anonymous they are doing this for freedom remember? Who defeated the Nazi in WW2? Anonymous! Who saved Jessica who was trapped in a well? Anonymous! Who will save us from global warming? Anonymous!

They are doing they freedom fighting ways by messing up PSN and screwing millions of innocent players so they can fight for they're selfish reason which is freedom!

We are cooler then you!
We are twice as strong as Superman!
We crap out gold!
We have girlfriends that are hotter then Megan Fox,Scarlett Johansson, and Olivia Wilde combined!
We are..........................ANONYMOUS!

Expecting us??????????????????????????

read this on gaf and credit to: brucewaynegretzky

And I think he have great points.

Ok reading this thread is making my head explode. It's particularly painful because I'm studying for a copyright final right now. People are sitting here screaming "consumer rights" at the top of their lungs. Sony was exercising part of their copyright over the PS3 OS. The point here is NOT that Sony "owns" your PS3. The point is that as the "authors" of the system they are entitled to specific rights. The purpose of these rights is to create a system where people are incentivized to create new things. If people were allowed to create copies, hack their systems, etc. it would not be worth it for companies like Sony or Microsoft to create new systems because piracy would steal from their profits. In this particular case the right Sony was exercising was the right to prevent people from circumventing their security measures in order to allow people to create unlawful copies. Sony does not claim to "own" any part of your PS3. They do however, have certain rights in dictating how you use it. Artists have some similar rights over their works, even after they've been sold. There are certain uses protected, but you are NOT allowed to distribute the types of things GeoHot did. You can't circumvent security measures. It's an economic incentive. Another software example: If you're a small game developer why would you ever create a PC game with no DRM? The reason is because it'll be copied in 2 seconds and you would never make a dime. This is why the security measures are protected. So go ahead, keep playing with your systems. The point here is that Sony can prevent certain uses in order to maintain a system where it makes sense for them to make new consoles.

Its entirely Sony's fault.

The purpose of Netflix IS renting, so what do you mean by that?

I understand that there are now subscription services for music, but how popular are these services? I know I heard about them, and had absolutely no interest. iTunes is a download service, and it, from what I know, is still the largest digital music service. I think most people aren't really interested in subscription services, just as I'm not; so, if people won't support the concept of subscription only services, how will an industry make that transition?

From what I see, subscription services are an ALTERNATIVE to purchasing a product, rather than an attempt to replace it. I think they can co-exist, just as movie renting coexists with movie purchasing. I think this coexistence is what the consumer prefers, and that if major changes are made against the consumers' wishes (i.e. converting to an all subscription service), then support will decline and/or drop.