By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony - VGC Official PSN/SOE Info/Updates Thread.

Kasz216 on 07 May 2011
M.U.G.E.N said:
Kasz216 said:
M.U.G.E.N said:
Kasz216 said:
M.U.G.E.N said:
Kasz216 said:

Read the bold.  When i meant average... I meant about average for a large company that loses your private information.

What Sony offered was about average in value to the consumer, though cheaper to them compaired to what most companies offer in the same situation. 


Again when there haven't been similar situations in gaming industry you can't just compare it to those outside the industry and say that's the 'average' you would expect. And unless you have anything back up your claim that the 'customers' in general expected at least this much from be my guest I would gladly accept that. But fact of the matter is that's just not true at all. Heck a day or so ago we weren't even aware of what we would get for certain and we already saw customers being happy with what Sony was doing with free id protection services and such.

so again, you just made up that statement without anything to back it up with. no one sensible person can ask from sony to do anything more than what they have already done.

That's just... a horrible arguement.  What in your mind makes the videogame industry special compaired to every other industry out there?

what kind of logic is that? 0_o industries differ, companies differ and situations differ.

Ok do me a favor, give an example or two of a company having to compensate for this many users. I can't remember the exact number of psn accounts but think it was 70 something million accounts. Not sure how many of them even had legit info but let's say 50 or so million accounts with real users.

They are rebuilding psn ground up, had a hit in stock market, a company who is not as well off a company than many 'giants' in or out of the industry, they are gonna lose revenue by giving free psn plus, gonna incur a lot of expenses by having adopt free ID theft protection programs across the globe not just a country or two.

you jsut can't generalize, too many variables in situations like this

When you argue a company should compensate the victims less because of number you are putting the company ahead of the real victims.  Something you should consider.

Aside from which, as you get more consumers... aka more customers, (Aka more money) the cost for securing a database properly goes DOWN per piece of information.  So if anything the reverse should be true.

I doubt Sony is going to go bankrupt over this.  Some consumers after that year of protection is up might though.

As for them having to rebuild PSN.  Well yeah, they have to rebuild it with things most security experts are shocked weren't in there to begin with.  I mean, when you consider Sony picked a fight with hackers... yet had nobody actually monitoring their security or advances in hacking or patching their systems... I mean... my god.  All they are doing now is what they SHOULD have done in the first place.


I'm not putting them ahead of my personal interests (since I am a consumer) at all. I'm just being reasonable and realistic here. Hence why you will never find me cheering on idiotic hackers any situation. Before jumping to conclusion just try and understand there is a difference.

Not sure what you were trying to prove with that second statement of yours. Was it regarding the expenses comment I made? or about having to rebuild the psn? cuz if it's about the expense of compensating for many users, it makes no sense since it will still cost a lot which was the only point I wanted to get across.

and I might be a milliionaire in a year, nintendogamer might turn optimistic, who knows. And I am not naive enough to think Sony will go bankrupt or even leave the gaming scene. That's just silly, they are a stronger and bigger company for that to happen.

and again not sure why you are stating this? Of course they effed up. plain and simple, I never disputed that and OBVIOUSLY that's why they are rebuilding the system from ground up. better late than never and I'm grateful they are taking their time to do so at least now properly. But I never denied or was ignorant of the reasons behind why they were made to do so.

so again within reason, they are doing more than enough.

No, they're doing... about as much as any company would in this situation.  Though again... you are.  You are claiming that the size of the breach means they should be allowed to offer less then what's standard.  Which is a clear show of considering the company more then the individual.

I mean, seriously just stop and think about it for a second.  How does it matter to the end consumer how many users data sony lost?  All that matters is that they lost their data.

What Sony's offering is fine.  Claiming it's generous or something they didn't have to do however is wrong.

It's about industry standard for this kind of F-up.



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 07 May 2011

Oh and to add to the "random messed up stuff" it seems that users names and adresses who entered a sweepstakes in 2001 had their info posted on said website during the hack.

Why sony even still had a website up from 2001 I don't even know.  Sony's whole web division seems like a mess.



M.U.G.E.N on 07 May 2011
Kasz216 said:
M.U.G.E.N said:


I'm not putting them ahead of my personal interests (since I am a consumer) at all. I'm just being reasonable and realistic here. Hence why you will never find me cheering on idiotic hackers any situation. Before jumping to conclusion just try and understand there is a difference.

Not sure what you were trying to prove with that second statement of yours. Was it regarding the expenses comment I made? or about having to rebuild the psn? cuz if it's about the expense of compensating for many users, it makes no sense since it will still cost a lot which was the only point I wanted to get across.

and I might be a milliionaire in a year, nintendogamer might turn optimistic, who knows. And I am not naive enough to think Sony will go bankrupt or even leave the gaming scene. That's just silly, they are a stronger and bigger company for that to happen.

and again not sure why you are stating this? Of course they effed up. plain and simple, I never disputed that and OBVIOUSLY that's why they are rebuilding the system from ground up. better late than never and I'm grateful they are taking their time to do so at least now properly. But I never denied or was ignorant of the reasons behind why they were made to do so.

so again within reason, they are doing more than enough.

No, they're doing... about as much as any company would in this situation.  Though again... you are.  You are claiming that the size of the breach means they should be allowed to offer less then what's standard.  Which is a clear show of considering the company more then the individual.

I mean, seriously just stop and think about it for a second.  How does it matter to the end consumer how many users data sony lost?  All that matters is that they lost their data.

What Sony's offering is fine.  Claiming it's generous or something they didn't have to do however is wrong.

It's about industry standard for this kind of F-up.

Either you are misunderstanding what I'm saying or you are intentionally trying to miss the pov I'm coming from.

I'm not saying the size of the data breach justifies current actions or anything. I'm telling you what they have done so far is what anyone withing reasonable means should expect at this point. You have yet to even give me the examples I asked of you to show me anything that can be compared to this situation.

take a step back, maybe read what I typed again. Misinterpretation is strong with this one on your end.

What sony is offering is more than fine imo. And this is where out pov change. and again your misinterpreting and putting words on your own. I never said it's generous or any of that nonsense. I'm just saying they are doing great in making it up to the users and imo that a reasonable user can't expect anything more from at this point.

you bring in 'industry' standards yet you can't provide me with a single example from the industry. the scale of the problem is something completely new to this industry. Actually you know what, forget this industry, give me few examples of incidents like this from any industry and what they did to compensate for it, I just wanna learn.



In-Kat-We-Trust Brigade!

"This world is Merciless, and it's also very beautiful"

For All News/Info related to the PlayStation Vita, Come and join us in the Official PSV Thread!

Kasz216 on 07 May 2011
M.U.G.E.N said:
Kasz216 said:
M.U.G.E.N said:


I'm not putting them ahead of my personal interests (since I am a consumer) at all. I'm just being reasonable and realistic here. Hence why you will never find me cheering on idiotic hackers any situation. Before jumping to conclusion just try and understand there is a difference.

Not sure what you were trying to prove with that second statement of yours. Was it regarding the expenses comment I made? or about having to rebuild the psn? cuz if it's about the expense of compensating for many users, it makes no sense since it will still cost a lot which was the only point I wanted to get across.

and I might be a milliionaire in a year, nintendogamer might turn optimistic, who knows. And I am not naive enough to think Sony will go bankrupt or even leave the gaming scene. That's just silly, they are a stronger and bigger company for that to happen.

and again not sure why you are stating this? Of course they effed up. plain and simple, I never disputed that and OBVIOUSLY that's why they are rebuilding the system from ground up. better late than never and I'm grateful they are taking their time to do so at least now properly. But I never denied or was ignorant of the reasons behind why they were made to do so.

so again within reason, they are doing more than enough.

No, they're doing... about as much as any company would in this situation.  Though again... you are.  You are claiming that the size of the breach means they should be allowed to offer less then what's standard.  Which is a clear show of considering the company more then the individual.

I mean, seriously just stop and think about it for a second.  How does it matter to the end consumer how many users data sony lost?  All that matters is that they lost their data.

What Sony's offering is fine.  Claiming it's generous or something they didn't have to do however is wrong.

It's about industry standard for this kind of F-up.

Either you are misunderstanding what I'm saying or you are intentionally trying to miss the pov I'm coming from.

I'm not saying the size of the data breach justifies current actions or anything. I'm telling you what they have done so far is what anyone withing reasonable means should expect at this point. You have yet to even give me the examples I asked of you to show me anything that can be compared to this situation.

take a step back, maybe read what I typed again. Misinterpretation is strong with this one on your end.

What sony is offering is more than fine imo. And this is where out pov change. and again your misinterpreting and putting words on your own. I never said it's generous or any of that nonsense. I'm just saying they are doing great in making it up to the users and imo that a reasonable user can't expect anything more from at this point.

you bring in 'industry' standards yet you can't provide me with a single example from the industry. the scale of the problem is something completely new to this industry. Actually you know what, forget this industry, give me few examples of incidents like this from any industry and what they did to compensate for it, I just wanna learn.

As far as I can tell you contradicted yourself in this same post.  Your saying that you aren't using the size as a precursor to what was offered.  Then suggest that what they offered was more then fine according to the size.

You want an example?  Sure.  Countrywide for example ended up offering 2 years of monitering service and $50,000 grand for damages after that.

Heartland was $175, 1 year of monitoring and $10,000 for identity reclimation.


The reason why Sony is doing this, and why they have to, is to avoid as many lawsuits as they can.  Better to pay off via games that don't really cost you anything and keep people using their system and internet, then to be forced to pay real cash.

They're doing it so they can point to it in court and hope it's enough to persuade the judges to set aside the cases... and it's just about enough to do so... as it is about exactly what it breaks down to.

If they're lucky they'll be able to avoid government lawsuits.  The FTC is actually known to sue companies who's infrastructue they deem negligent in these cases. 

It's about Industry standard and it's constructed that way to avoid as much legal scrutiny as possible.  It's "about right" in the sense that it's the bare minium that will probably shield them from taking much harsher losses.



Kasz216 on 07 May 2011

And forthe record for all I care.  Sony could offer nothing.

They lost my info, but I don't care.

I'm talking about purely from a buisness perspective.

 Only two things bothered me in the whole case.

1) Sony didn't email me the day they released the Press Release about the hack.  It took like 3 days later.  If it had been something I gave a shit about i'd of been pissed.

2) Free PSN Plus for 30 days.  Seems like a cheap attempt to turn a profit off their own incompetence.  Reminds me back when TJ Max lost peoples personal data and they tried to offer 1 Year of Identity and "A 3 day 15% off sale!"

As you can imagine.  They were hit by big lawsuits... by customers, and then FTC really hit them.



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 07 May 2011

By the way... like I said above.. the scary thing is, whoever too that data has started posting some of it online... including peoples freaking home addresses.  (Though from 2001.)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/07/sony-removes-data-stolen-hackers_n_858913.html

Guess it wasn't a Sony website though... read that wrong on rueters.

Seems more likely that it's hackers angry over the Geohotz thing at this rate.


If they put up everyones info on the interent....

It would not be good.

I wonder if sony actual knows the extent of the breach... since such people were never mentioned before.



M.U.G.E.N on 07 May 2011
Kasz216 said:
M.U.G.E.N said:
Kasz216 said:
M.U.G.E.N said:


I'm not putting them ahead of my personal interests (since I am a consumer) at all. I'm just being reasonable and realistic here. Hence why you will never find me cheering on idiotic hackers any situation. Before jumping to conclusion just try and understand there is a difference.

Not sure what you were trying to prove with that second statement of yours. Was it regarding the expenses comment I made? or about having to rebuild the psn? cuz if it's about the expense of compensating for many users, it makes no sense since it will still cost a lot which was the only point I wanted to get across.

and I might be a milliionaire in a year, nintendogamer might turn optimistic, who knows. And I am not naive enough to think Sony will go bankrupt or even leave the gaming scene. That's just silly, they are a stronger and bigger company for that to happen.

and again not sure why you are stating this? Of course they effed up. plain and simple, I never disputed that and OBVIOUSLY that's why they are rebuilding the system from ground up. better late than never and I'm grateful they are taking their time to do so at least now properly. But I never denied or was ignorant of the reasons behind why they were made to do so.

so again within reason, they are doing more than enough.

No, they're doing... about as much as any company would in this situation.  Though again... you are.  You are claiming that the size of the breach means they should be allowed to offer less then what's standard.  Which is a clear show of considering the company more then the individual.

I mean, seriously just stop and think about it for a second.  How does it matter to the end consumer how many users data sony lost?  All that matters is that they lost their data.

What Sony's offering is fine.  Claiming it's generous or something they didn't have to do however is wrong.

It's about industry standard for this kind of F-up.

Either you are misunderstanding what I'm saying or you are intentionally trying to miss the pov I'm coming from.

I'm not saying the size of the data breach justifies current actions or anything. I'm telling you what they have done so far is what anyone withing reasonable means should expect at this point. You have yet to even give me the examples I asked of you to show me anything that can be compared to this situation.

take a step back, maybe read what I typed again. Misinterpretation is strong with this one on your end.

What sony is offering is more than fine imo. And this is where out pov change. and again your misinterpreting and putting words on your own. I never said it's generous or any of that nonsense. I'm just saying they are doing great in making it up to the users and imo that a reasonable user can't expect anything more from at this point.

you bring in 'industry' standards yet you can't provide me with a single example from the industry. the scale of the problem is something completely new to this industry. Actually you know what, forget this industry, give me few examples of incidents like this from any industry and what they did to compensate for it, I just wanna learn.

As far as I can tell you contradicted yourself in this same post.  Your saying that you aren't using the size as a precursor to what was offered.  Then suggest that what they offered was more then fine according to the size.

You want an example?  Sure.  Countrywide for example ended up offering 2 years of monitering service and $50,000 grand for damages after that.

Heartland was $175, 1 year of monitoring and $10,000 for identity reclimation.


The reason why Sony is doing this, and why they have to, is to avoid as many lawsuits as they can.  Better to pay off via games that don't really cost you anything and keep people using their system and internet, then to be forced to pay real cash.

They're doing it so they can point to it in court and hope it's enough to persuade the judges to set aside the cases... and it's just about enough to do so... as it is about exactly what it breaks down to.

If they're lucky they'll be able to avoid government lawsuits.  The FTC is actually known to sue companies who's infrastructue they deem negligent in these cases. 

It's about Industry standard and it's constructed that way to avoid as much legal scrutiny as possible.  It's "about right" in the sense that it's the bare minium that will probably shield them from taking much harsher losses.

lol reentering a discussion after sleeping is weired :S I had to re-read some stuff just to remember what we are going on about

What I was trying to say is we have not seen anything liek this in this industry. Depending on the situation what a company can and should provide for consumers will vary.

I'm not that familiar with the Heartland case but in the Countrywide case it was around 15million or so people and as far as I see it, sony is covering way more people, and providing more things to them in compensation as well. iirc they also said they will cover any damages caused by this data breach too.

So again there is no average. It differs from case to case and again this is just a clash of opinions. You think this is what they should do in the least where as I think they are doing more than anyone reasonable would as of them.

and obviously, they are doing this 1. To protect themselves from future issues with the law 2. to keep the customers on the good side as much as possible. That much is obvious. But I don't think even if they had offered less that this, it would make much of a difference. But that is something you or I won't know for certain. Reason, we really do not have any examples that are similar in scale or similar in nature or industry to this one to compare.

but hey let's just drop it here :D this will go on and on and I usually like to stick to short comments. Let's just agree to disagree



In-Kat-We-Trust Brigade!

"This world is Merciless, and it's also very beautiful"

For All News/Info related to the PlayStation Vita, Come and join us in the Official PSV Thread!

Kasz216 on 07 May 2011
M.U.G.E.N said:
Kasz216 said:
M.U.G.E.N said:
Kasz216 said:
M.U.G.E.N said:


I'm not putting them ahead of my personal interests (since I am a consumer) at all. I'm just being reasonable and realistic here. Hence why you will never find me cheering on idiotic hackers any situation. Before jumping to conclusion just try and understand there is a difference.

Not sure what you were trying to prove with that second statement of yours. Was it regarding the expenses comment I made? or about having to rebuild the psn? cuz if it's about the expense of compensating for many users, it makes no sense since it will still cost a lot which was the only point I wanted to get across.

and I might be a milliionaire in a year, nintendogamer might turn optimistic, who knows. And I am not naive enough to think Sony will go bankrupt or even leave the gaming scene. That's just silly, they are a stronger and bigger company for that to happen.

and again not sure why you are stating this? Of course they effed up. plain and simple, I never disputed that and OBVIOUSLY that's why they are rebuilding the system from ground up. better late than never and I'm grateful they are taking their time to do so at least now properly. But I never denied or was ignorant of the reasons behind why they were made to do so.

so again within reason, they are doing more than enough.

No, they're doing... about as much as any company would in this situation.  Though again... you are.  You are claiming that the size of the breach means they should be allowed to offer less then what's standard.  Which is a clear show of considering the company more then the individual.

I mean, seriously just stop and think about it for a second.  How does it matter to the end consumer how many users data sony lost?  All that matters is that they lost their data.

What Sony's offering is fine.  Claiming it's generous or something they didn't have to do however is wrong.

It's about industry standard for this kind of F-up.

Either you are misunderstanding what I'm saying or you are intentionally trying to miss the pov I'm coming from.

I'm not saying the size of the data breach justifies current actions or anything. I'm telling you what they have done so far is what anyone withing reasonable means should expect at this point. You have yet to even give me the examples I asked of you to show me anything that can be compared to this situation.

take a step back, maybe read what I typed again. Misinterpretation is strong with this one on your end.

What sony is offering is more than fine imo. And this is where out pov change. and again your misinterpreting and putting words on your own. I never said it's generous or any of that nonsense. I'm just saying they are doing great in making it up to the users and imo that a reasonable user can't expect anything more from at this point.

you bring in 'industry' standards yet you can't provide me with a single example from the industry. the scale of the problem is something completely new to this industry. Actually you know what, forget this industry, give me few examples of incidents like this from any industry and what they did to compensate for it, I just wanna learn.

As far as I can tell you contradicted yourself in this same post.  Your saying that you aren't using the size as a precursor to what was offered.  Then suggest that what they offered was more then fine according to the size.

You want an example?  Sure.  Countrywide for example ended up offering 2 years of monitering service and $50,000 grand for damages after that.

Heartland was $175, 1 year of monitoring and $10,000 for identity reclimation.


The reason why Sony is doing this, and why they have to, is to avoid as many lawsuits as they can.  Better to pay off via games that don't really cost you anything and keep people using their system and internet, then to be forced to pay real cash.

They're doing it so they can point to it in court and hope it's enough to persuade the judges to set aside the cases... and it's just about enough to do so... as it is about exactly what it breaks down to.

If they're lucky they'll be able to avoid government lawsuits.  The FTC is actually known to sue companies who's infrastructue they deem negligent in these cases. 

It's about Industry standard and it's constructed that way to avoid as much legal scrutiny as possible.  It's "about right" in the sense that it's the bare minium that will probably shield them from taking much harsher losses.

lol reentering a discussion after sleeping is weired :S I had to re-read some stuff just to remember what we are going on about

What I was trying to say is we have not seen anything liek this in this industry. Depending on the situation what a company can and should provide for consumers will vary.

I'm not that familiar with the Heartland case but in the Countrywide case it was around 15million or so people and as far as I see it, sony is covering way more people, and providing more things to them in compensation as well. iirc they also said they will cover any damages caused by this data breach too.

So again there is no average. It differs from case to case and again this is just a clash of opinions. You think this is what they should do in the least where as I think they are doing more than anyone reasonable would as of them.

and obviously, they are doing this 1. To protect themselves from future issues with the law 2. to keep the customers on the good side as much as possible. That much is obvious. But I don't think even if they had offered less that this, it would make much of a difference. But that is something you or I won't know for certain. Reason, we really do not have any examples that are similar in scale or similar in nature or industry to this one to compare.

but hey let's just drop it here :D this will go on and on and I usually like to stick to short comments. Let's just agree to disagree

Again the number of people doesn't matter.  To suggest it does is to put the company ahead of the victims.  Think about it this way.  If someone lost your money due to their incompetence and they say "Sorry I can only offer you 70% of what people usually get in this kind of screwup, because I wasn't careful with hundreds of peoples data instead of just yours."

Would you really say... "Ok!" 

If anything, by the time the courts, feds and state got through with the guy they'd be paying much more in fines and settlements from lawsuits per person then the single person.   All because of "Penalties."

Being negligent with 1 persons data is one thing, being negligent with 100 is totally different, since you should know better, have more resources, and cost less to secure.

Heartland case was 100 million for what it's worth... it's one of maybe two or three cases bigger then the Sony one.

Also... they didn't say that.  What they said was their Identity theft coverage had insurance up to a million dollars. (They all have insurance.)  So you get reimbursed for that year.

As for knowing for sure?  Well no, if I bet all my money on Black 4 on a roullete table I don't know for sure i'm going to lose my money... but I sure can make a pretty informed guess on the matter.  Aside from which, I gave you two cases.  The Feds are going to expect more, not less for the number of customers lost.

We can agree to disagree, but the general difference is one of our opinions has backing outside of just opinion.



M.U.G.E.N on 07 May 2011
Kasz216 said:
M.U.G.E.N said:

lol reentering a discussion after sleeping is weired :S I had to re-read some stuff just to remember what we are going on about

What I was trying to say is we have not seen anything liek this in this industry. Depending on the situation what a company can and should provide for consumers will vary.

I'm not that familiar with the Heartland case but in the Countrywide case it was around 15million or so people and as far as I see it, sony is covering way more people, and providing more things to them in compensation as well. iirc they also said they will cover any damages caused by this data breach too.

So again there is no average. It differs from case to case and again this is just a clash of opinions. You think this is what they should do in the least where as I think they are doing more than anyone reasonable would as of them.

and obviously, they are doing this 1. To protect themselves from future issues with the law 2. to keep the customers on the good side as much as possible. That much is obvious. But I don't think even if they had offered less that this, it would make much of a difference. But that is something you or I won't know for certain. Reason, we really do not have any examples that are similar in scale or similar in nature or industry to this one to compare.

but hey let's just drop it here :D this will go on and on and I usually like to stick to short comments. Let's just agree to disagree

Again the number of people doesn't matter.  To suggest it does is to put the company ahead of the victims.  Think about it this way.  If someone lost your money due to their incompetence and they say "Sorry I can only offer you 70% of what people usually get in this kind of screwup, because I wasn't careful with hundreds of peoples data instead of just yours."

Would you really say... "Ok!" 

If anything, by the time the courts, feds and state got through with the guy they'd be paying much more in fines and settlements from lawsuits per person then the single person.   All because of "Penalties."

Being negligent with 1 persons data is one thing, being negligent with 100 is totally different, since you should know better, have more resources, and cost less to secure.

Heartland case was 100 million for what it's worth... it's one of maybe two or three cases bigger then the Sony one.

Also... they didn't say that.  What they said was their Identity theft coverage had insurance up to a million dollars. (They all have insurance.)  So you get reimbursed for that year.

As for knowing for sure?  Well no, if I bet all my money on Black 4 on a roullete table I don't know for sure i'm going to lose my money... but I sure can make a pretty informed guess on the matter.  Aside from which, I gave you two cases.  The Feds are going to expect more, not less for the number of customers lost.

We can agree to disagree, but the general difference is one of our opinions has backing outside of just opinion.

sigh dude you just can't just leave it can ya? when you stop your post with something like your last sentence it's just not gonna help end this long long argument back and forth, and frankly rather annoying at this point.

I don't wanna keep this going tho cuz it seems it's just useless. You say this is average yet you can't come up with anything similar in scope to the one of PSN. You mention some companies that did one thing or the other yet ignore sony are doing several things in addition since this is a incident in the gaming industry, comparing it to other situations outside the industry is very impractial because so many variables invovled hence why I think what you're going on about is flawed

heck we do not know the extent of expenses to compare and say Heartland case was bigger, that is yet to be seen. Unless they also had to rebuild a large network, compensate with free services, free products along with ID theft coverage, and make those compensatons on a global level which will lead to even more expenses, it's not the same thing hence why your generalizaton fails.

and I disagree the general difference is you THINK the things you posted back up what I'm against but in reality it doesn't. At the end of the day it all comes down to what YOU believe to be average in compensation vs what I believe. I'm not putting company above customers and even thinking so is rather immature given I am a customer myself and I along with many of my friends are affected by it. Given how many have already showed ther satisfaction on things sony has done, the only major complaint I see is how they want psn back up on asap, only few are trying to spin this in a way the way you are doing. It's quite sad really. Doesn't matter if you climb the tallest building near you and scream it out loud, I'm not putting ANY company above myself. I'm just being reasonable, and from the comments of many psn users it's clear they are more than satisfied with what Sony is providing. Being reasonable in your expectations is a good thing, you should try it sometimes.

this annoying conversation has gone long enough and you won't listen to reason to understand this is just a difference of opinion and expectations, nothing more nothing less. I won't reply again or even read your next post as I'm sure it will have a childish remark that will urge me to reply again. I disagree with what you said, that is all.



In-Kat-We-Trust Brigade!

"This world is Merciless, and it's also very beautiful"

For All News/Info related to the PlayStation Vita, Come and join us in the Official PSV Thread!

Kasz216 on 07 May 2011
M.U.G.E.N said:
 

sigh dude you just can't just leave it can ya? when you stop your post with something like your last sentence it's just not gonna help end this long long argument back and forth, and frankly rather annoying at this point.

I don't wanna keep this going tho cuz it seems it's just useless. You say this is average yet you can't come up with anything similar in scope to the one of PSN. You mention some companies that did one thing or the other yet ignore sony are doing several things in addition since this is a incident in the gaming industry, comparing it to other situations outside the industry is very impractial because so many variables invovled hence why I think what you're going on about is flawed

heck we do not know the extent of expenses to compare and say Heartland case was bigger, that is yet to be seen. Unless they also had to rebuild a large network, compensate with free services, free products along with ID theft coverage, and make those compensatons on a global level which will lead to even more expenses, it's not the same thing hence why your generalizaton fails.

and I disagree the general difference is you THINK the things you posted back up what I'm against but in reality it doesn't. At the end of the day it all comes down to what YOU believe to be average in compensation vs what I believe. I'm not putting company above customers and even thinking so is rather immature given I am a customer myself and I along with many of my friends are affected by it. Given how many have already showed ther satisfaction on things sony has done, the only major complaint I see is how they want psn back up on asap, only few are trying to spin this in a way the way you are doing. It's quite sad really. Doesn't matter if you climb the tallest building near you and scream it out loud, I'm not putting ANY company above myself. I'm just being reasonable, and from the comments of many psn users it's clear they are more than satisfied with what Sony is providing. Being reasonable in your expectations is a good thing, you should try it sometimes.

this annoying conversation has gone long enough and you won't listen to reason to understand this is just a difference of opinion and expectations, nothing more nothing less. I won't reply again or even read your next post as I'm sure it will have a childish remark that will urge me to reply again. I disagree with what you said, that is all.

You know what, screw it.  I simplified it in the next post.