Well, so if enough people protest, they'll refrain from screwing them over... temporarily.
Lame. What I'd hope would be that they admit they were wrong to even try it, and promise not to do anything similar in the future. But that's not what happened.
The PS3 was introduced almost 15 years ago, and new sales stopped almost five years ago. How long do you think they should continue to sell games for it? Why is it "wrong to even try" to stop selling games for obsolete platforms -- and why do you think that will always be wrong?
Everybody in the tech industry behaves as though supporting anything for more than 6 months will cost billions of dollars and will bankrupt the operation. If they designed their systems correctly, then the support costs are virtually nothing.
Meanwhile, you always hear stories of that server running in the basement for 20 years that everybody forgot even existed.
The PS3 is 15 years old. That's a long time in the tech industry. In the consumer market, that's damn near forever given how people tend to want the latest and shiniest gadget.
Why are people throwing around the number of 15 years old? Only the first PS3 is 15 years old. They were manufactured until May 2017, so some of the consoles aren't even 4 years old. If you bought a PS3 in 2017 it is not unreasonable to expect that the online store would still be running for a couple more years.
The cost for those servers and storage is iminimal. All those games dont add up to billions of dollars of hd space on AWS. If anything they could make small profit selling subscriptions and so on and it cant cost more than a few dozen and im being generous to run that.
Secondly why would they need to change anything if at all, just let it run with minor improvements or fixes.
The cost for those servers and storage is minimal.
Until you have to replace the hardware because it's old and you can't get replacement parts. Then you have to buy all new hardware or migrate the service to the cloud. Both options have a cost and require manpower. If the service isn't generating new revenue, the bean counters are not going to be happy with either choice.
lets pretend its either of the two, the value is not that much considering the size of Sony. Im sure they can spare a few 100k to keep this going and pay for all related costs.
security patches & attack mitigation, general maintenance, support staff and training. If they were shutting it down it's more than likely because they were losing money on it and not some nefarious plot. Sony *loses* money on hardware. The longer they can keep you buying games for a system they already took the hit on the better.
It was Sony's decision to lock down the PS3 so hard that it is largely junk without the store. The right thing to do would be, one final update that unlocks the ROM and the hard disk encryption stupidity.
Sony made this filthy bed, now they must lie in it.
Not trustworthy (Score:2)
Well, so if enough people protest, they'll refrain from screwing them over... temporarily.
Lame. What I'd hope would be that they admit they were wrong to even try it, and promise not to do anything similar in the future. But that's not what happened.
Re: (Score:1)
The PS3 was introduced almost 15 years ago, and new sales stopped almost five years ago. How long do you think they should continue to sell games for it? Why is it "wrong to even try" to stop selling games for obsolete platforms -- and why do you think that will always be wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
Because they don't need to stop it, and it doesn't cost them anything to leave it up.
It isn't like they're not longer a game company, or they no longer have webservers running that stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Everybody in the tech industry behaves as though supporting anything for more than 6 months will cost billions of dollars and will bankrupt the operation. If they designed their systems correctly, then the support costs are virtually nothing.
Meanwhile, you always hear stories of that server running in the basement for 20 years that everybody forgot even existed.
Re: (Score:2)
The PS3 is 15 years old. That's a long time in the tech industry. In the consumer market, that's damn near forever given how people tend to want the latest and shiniest gadget.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The cost for those servers and storage is minimal.
Until you have to replace the hardware because it's old and you can't get replacement parts. Then you have to buy all new hardware or migrate the service to the cloud. Both options have a cost and require manpower. If the service isn't generating new revenue, the bean counters are not going to be happy with either choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Um... of course it costs money to keep it up (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It was Sony's decision to lock down the PS3 so hard that it is largely junk without the store. The right thing to do would be, one final update that unlocks the ROM and the hard disk encryption stupidity.
Sony made this filthy bed, now they must lie in it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's going to require a lot more than one server with a few gigs of disk space to support a large number of consoles.
Re: (Score:2)