Does have XBox Live or PSN? Don't tell me they have. Even a cheap server costs you around 10 Euro a month.300K servers would be stack up to costs of 3 million Euro or Dollar in a month, so 30 million a year. But the servers for the online network cost probably a lot more, because the important thing about them is connection bandwidth, and that is the thing that produces costs. So I think it's kinda unbelievable any of the three has 300K servers for the online gaming. 300K VIRTUAL servers on the other hand... Probably that's the thing one of the companies advertised, to impress customers.

Sonys network was hacked. Is that better?

I don't think some hickups are really a very bad sign, it happens to everyone. If someone like that would happen all the time, that would be bad. But that didn't happen for Sony nor NIntendo.

I love how you bring a hypothetical situation that hasn't happened into the fray and try to present it as a fact. Moot point anyway, because according to you, Nintendo's network isn't worth hacking. Nintendo probably lost more from so many its games on hacked PSPs than on hacked Wiis. No wonder it's doomed.

Nintendo Should advertise the fact that their Internet Connection is FREE!

Fixed!

I love how you are acting like nintendo are immune just because their network hasnt been hacked yet.

You fail to understand that if anyone wants to hack a network, the value in nintendo's network is puney compared to other targets. That mean its better than the networks of the companies which the hackers do attack. I'm not sure why you are finding such a simple point so hard to understand.

edit: btw I cut the quote tree otherwise the mods will come.

I never said Nintendo is immune to anything. I just recognize the scent of a BS argument. If Anonymous' goal was money, then who would have lost a penny? Some-one. The point of the attacks wasn't money, the point was to be assholes with no real objective, kind of like your first post.

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?

Let's review the timeline of our posts:

Your 1st post: Flamebait

My 1st post: Flamebait response

Your 2nd post: Unsubstantiated claim with more flamebait in the form of a strawman argument

My 2nd post: Existential question followed by sarcasm that returns the argument back to my first post

Your third post: Downplay of the seriousness of the issue

My third post: Awareness of the issue in the big picture followed by a personal attack

Your fourth post: Another unsubstantiated claim and another attempt to draw attention away from the original subject

My fourth post: Callout of your unsubstantiated claims that have no historical basis, along with using the flamebait from your second post for the lulz.

Your fifth post: I'll just some it up with #14 from a cool little thread I know called "VGChartz Logic"

14. "If you don't agree with me you must not be listening to what I'm saying." (credit to RavenXtra)

14.1 "If you actually understood what I was saying, there's no way you'd disagree with me - because nobody who can understand what I am saying could possibly have a different point of view: mine is the only correct opinion someone who had all the facts could make!" (elaborated upon by VitroBahllee)

14.2 "If somone disagrees with you and you exlain your point, but they still won't change their mind, there's only one possible explanation: problem with their reading comprehension" (credit to naruball)

So basically we can sum up your feelings like this: "Nintendo's network sucks, it's not even worth hacking, and if it ever was hacked, there's absolutely nothing Nintendo could do about it, because Nintendo's network sucks. A network's security strength is determined solely by how awesome it's interface and online community is, so OBVIOUSLY if Sony could get pwned, YOU KNOW Nintendo would. Not that it matters, because it sucks to much to be worth hacking."

OK, cool, got it. Your opinion has been heard. Thanks for your valuable contributions to the forum. You're a credit to us all.

Putting your interpretation in speech marks doesnt make it my comment.

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.

They shouldn't as people shoudln't pay to play online.

You think you have credibility after putting your interpretations into quotes and writing an essay on them?