Sony PlayStation Network Back Up Now, Supposedly

jfruh (300774) writes Sony's PlayStation Network, brought down in a Christmas Day hacking attack, now seems to be back online. Of course, Sony also said the same thing on Saturday, but outages and problems lingered. From the article: At around 1 a.m. U.S. Eastern Time on Sunday, Sony declared its online gaming platform fixed and, as it had done the day before, blamed the problems on a distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack. ... The company jumped the gun early Saturday when it trumpeted that the PlayStation Network was gradually getting back to normal, announcing the good news at around 4 a.m. via its Ask PlayStation Twitter account and triumphantly changing the PlayStation Network status to “online” in the support website a few hours later.

Up down up down

[Snotnose]

In San Diego PSN was fine for me Christmas day (when I only logged on to see if I could), down all day the 26th (which was the 1 day of the week I'd planned to play CoD all day), and back up yesterday (27th). Haven't tried it today.

Lesson goes unlearned

[Anonymous Coward]

Playstation owners should demand their money back, NOW! And the rest of you dummies have to stop enabling this practice of requiring a network connection to play a damn game! How stupid can you be? This is the same idiocy that made paying to receive a phone call a marketable thing. You crave electronic trinkets with blinky lights! You people are sick!

Re:

[GNious]

This is the same idiocy that made paying to receive a phone call a marketable thing.

I sorta disbelieve there are anyone stupid enough to pay to RECEIVE a call - that is simply beyond most common levels of stupidity.

(also, never seen that advertised)

Re:

[Calydor]

Call Collect?

The US SMS system? Technically not a call, but still communication over your phone.

An argument could be made that half of your phone subscription payment is for the ability to receive calls.

Re:

[GNious]

Call collect? Thats your #1 example? yeah, it is paying to receive a call, but you're reaching from the get-go.

If Americans are stupid enough to pay to receive SMSes, that's just them being silly - in the last 20 years, I've never heard of that over here.
As for subscription, again mate, you're reaching.

Re:

[khellendros1984]

If Americans are stupid enough to pay to receive SMSes, that's just them being silly

Most plans include unlimited SMS services, but some cheaper ones charge per-message sent or received. There's no reason to insult a nationality over something as stupid as having different phone plans. There are plenty of worthier things to insult America and Americans over, after all.

Re:

[dAzED1]

it's still how it works. Apparently the GP doesn't even think about it but yeah, they pay to receive phone calls.

Re:

[GNious]

Then question becomes, do someone also pay to make to make the calls, that "Mobile phone users in the United States pay to receive" ?
Over here I've never heard of this, outside of some (not-wholly-dissimilar) attempts that were shut down immediately.

Re: Lesson goes unlearned

[adolf]

In the US, we have a long tradition of paying both to place and receive mobile phone calls and SMS.

We also have a long tradition of receiving landline calls for free, and also placing them for free to numbers in a specific local area. We have never had a custom of paying to answer a landline.

Nor, I must point out, have we ever had a custom of paying more to call a mobile number than any other number, as I understand is/was commonplace in some other parts of the world. When I would pick up my landline to d

Re:

[khellendros1984]

Depends on the plan. I've got unlimited texts and data, don't pay to send or receive calls from mobile devices, and have 10x more minutes for landline calls than I've ever used in a given month. I don't know about payment models for pay-as-you-go plans, because I've never used one, and almost no one that I know has ever had a plan like that.

Re: Lesson goes unlearned

[Chris]

All that really matters is total cost of ownership. But I'm sure there are exceptions.

Re:

[sjames]

And yet that's how it works for cellphone minutes.

Re:Lesson goes unlearned

[ledow]

Only in the US.

Paying to receive is RIDICULOUS. Just because it's the norm for you, doesn't mean it's not still ridiculous.

Re:

[sjames]

I fully agree. I was just pointing out that such a crazy thing actually does exist.

Re:

[drinkypoo]

Paying to receive is RIDICULOUS.

What? It doesn't matter if you're making or receiving the call, the same amount of traffic is flying through the air, and the network has to do just as much work. The negotiation part of the call is brief, it's the actual call that takes up bandwidth and it takes up the same amount no matter who makes the call. I know I said that already, but it bears repeating because you not only said what you said but you also got modded up for it.

There's lots of things which are ridiculous about cellphones in the USA bu

Re:

[donaldm]

Paying to receive is RIDICULOUS.

What? It doesn't matter if you're making or receiving the call, the same amount of traffic is flying through the air, and the network has to do just as much work. The negotiation part of the call is brief, it's the actual call that takes up bandwidth and it takes up the same amount no matter who makes the call. I know I said that already, but it bears repeating because you not only said what you said but you also got modded up for it.

You are quite correct with regard to send and receive traffic however that is not the issue here if someone sends me an SMS unsolicited or otherwise why should I have pay for it?

There's lots of things which are ridiculous about cellphones in the USA but paying whether you make or take a call actually makes sense. We could argue about whether the prices are justified, but there's no technical justification for not paying for incoming calls.

Please explain to me how paying to receive a call makes sense unless you are given a "call collect" option?

Re:

[drinkypoo]

You are quite correct with regard to send and receive traffic however that is not the issue here if someone sends me an SMS unsolicited or otherwise why should I have pay for it?

I would argue that no one should ever have to pay for SMS, unless they are generating multiple SMS per second. But hey, that's just me.

Please explain to me how paying to receive a call makes sense unless you are given a "call collect" option?

I did that in my prior comment.

Re:

[ledow]

The justification is not technical.

It's social, and commercial.

If someone sends me something that I never asked for, I have to take specific measures against any and all such messages or I will be charged against my will.

That's RIDICULOUS.

The alternative is that the sending party that wants to spam me has to spend the money to do so, and their unwanted spam is nothing more than an annoyance (not a monetary cost on my part too). Which is how the rest of the world works.

Sorry, but I am not going to hold fund

Re:

[drinkypoo]

Hell, you are paying for WRONG NUMBERS to ring you

No, I am not, because I do not answer calls from numbers not in my phone book. I let them go straight to voicemail. I probably don't want to talk to them anyway — if it's important, I'll get an email. The only exception is if there's an emergency, but I'm not emergency personnel anyway.

Re:

[nedlohs]

Why is it ridiculous?

Someone has to pay. Why does it make sense for the caller to pay instead of the callee, considering that the callee is the one who decided to be on a cellphone rather than a local number?

And of course having the callee pay also means that the caller doesn't have to know if a number is a cellphone or not, and so you don't need a dedicated pool of cellphone numbers and can instead just use numbers from the usual pool.

Re:

[donaldm]

Why is it ridiculous?

Someone has to pay. Why does it make sense for the caller to pay instead of the callee, considering that the callee is the one who decided to be on a cellphone rather than a local number?

And of course having the callee pay also means that the caller doesn't have to know if a number is a cellphone or not, and so you don't need a dedicated pool of cellphone numbers and can instead just use numbers from the usual pool.

You are right someone has to pay but why should a person who gets unsolicited SMS's or phone calls have to pay?

I can understand and accept a "call collect" option but paying for receiving unsolicited SMS and phone calls is IMHO open to abuse by those sending said messages/calls to you.

Re:

[nedlohs]

For SMSes sure but for phone calls they choose to answer or not.

I've lived in countries with both systems. I see advantages to each, with neither of them be "RIDICULOUS".

Re:

[beelsebob]

It's pretty common in the US. Crazily, for a while, it was even common to have to pay to receive SMSes, which you couldn't even opt out of receiving.

Re: Lesson goes unlearned

[Karlt1]

You're right. It's totally asinine to require network access to play a game with other people that are not sitting next to you....

Re:

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

It doesn't.

Re:

[beelsebob]

I've been busily playing my games for the past few days... You don't need a network connection to play any of them.

Re:

[donaldm]

I've been busily playing my games for the past few days... You don't need a network connection to play any of them.

I never had any problems playing single player games as well and there is usually allot more of them than on-line or on-line only games. Of course playing games like Demon's Souls or Dark Souls with an unpredictable network is actually quite good for the beginner since it means you have a smaller chance of getting invaded although you probably won't get much help either. Still those games I have mentioned are fully playable unlike on-line only games.

For people who only like on-line only games (PC or conso

Re:

[westlake]

Playstation owners should demand their money back, NOW! And the rest of you dummies have to stop enabling this practice of requiring a network connection to play a damn game!

The console has long since become more of an Internet-enabled home media center than a single purpose video game player --- and most of the video games these days have a online multiplayer component.

Re:

[donaldm]

Playstation owners should demand their money back, NOW! And the rest of you dummies have to stop enabling this practice of requiring a network connection to play a damn game! How stupid can you be? This is the same idiocy that made paying to receive a phone call a marketable thing. You crave electronic trinkets with blinky lights! You people are sick!

Wow the troll is strong with this one. I wonder if he (could be a she but I doubt it) has a PS3 or PS4? I do agree with "This is the same idiocy that made paying to receive a phone call a marketable thing" although thankfully I live in a country were this is not allowed.

And...

[Anonymous Coward]

...Nothing of value was lost.

Get off your asses, you sedentary neck-beards.

Sony blaming everything on hackers....

[The New Guy 2.0]

DDoS have been pretty much solved by now... haven't Sony learned the difference between too many legit users and a hack?

Re:

[rmdingler]

They know how to protect the vulnerability.

They won't spend to fix it unless they're shamed into it, and possibly not even then.

If they don't fix it now, they're saying they don't give a shit.

Re:

[Frosty Piss]

They know how to protect the vulnerability.
They won't spend to fix it unless they're shamed into it, and possibly not even then.

If they don't fix it now, they're saying they don't give a shit.

From the mouth of an expert, right?

Re:

[rmdingler]

I'm a confidant of a girl who's cousin's uncle is an expert,

so I have it on quasi-reputable authority.

Re:

[donaldm]

DDoS have been pretty much solved by now... haven't Sony learned the difference between too many legit users and a hack?

Hmm I suggest the following starting point [wikipedia.org] for an introduction to DDoS and even possible solutions. You should also know that the Microsoft network [businessinsider.com.au] access was also impacted as well so it was not just Sony.

Re:

[The New Guy 2.0]

What I'm saying is that downtime from too much bandwidth on Christmas is most likely due to users with free time and newly opened boxes. Too many paying customers looks like a DDoS but isn't exactly one.

Let this be a lesson

[Vandil X]

I've been a fan of physical game carts/discs that are 100% playable offline. Getting a new PS4 or Xbox One that "bundles" a download code for a game is a rip off if you have to download the game and have it call home every time you want to play. So when the online component is down, you can't download or play the downloaded game since it can't phone home. That's ridiculous. I skipped the Xbox One and PS4 for reasons like this. Even more so: 10 years from now when the authentication server goes offline, your Xbox One or PS4 game is dead. Whereas, I can still pop in my favorite NES, SNES, Genesis, N64, PSOne, Saturn, DreamCast, GCN, and PS2 games without any worry for an internet connection. (And select PS3 and Xbox 360 games.) Vote with your money, people.

Re:

[Snotnose]

This is also how Uverse works. Lose your cable/internet, you can't even watch shows already recorded. When I move in a few months I'll be getting another Tivo.

Re:

[dAzED1]

that's quite the sense of entitlement you've got there - yes, sometimes things aren't working. So what, go outside, or maybe spend time with your familiy. Secondly, you might look into getting broadband - people are able to get decent speeds now, we no longer have to use dialup (ie, downloading something shouldn't be a concern anymore). 10 years from now I won't have a PS4 or XBox One, just like I don't play on my old atari anymore either (though I do play clones on my PC sometimes...which satisfies the

Re:

[drinkypoo]

that's quite the sense of entitlement you've got there

When you plan for the future, you get to look smug.

Yes, in fact, I said reliable - have you never had your house burn down, or robbed?

Yay insurance.

Re:

[mrchaotica]

Wanting to be able to use your own damn property is "entitlement?!" Fuck you!

Re:

[qwak23]

I more or less posted this on the last thread, I can't speak for Xbox One as I do not have one, but the PS4, it's games, disc or download work just fine without a network connection as long as THE GAME doesn't require an internet connection.

During the outage I only had 2 games I was unable to play, Destiny (where online is kinda the point) and Plants vs. Zombies Garden Warfare because for whatever reason EA requires a network connection on that game even though it has a local play mode. The rest worked, re

Re:

[marsu_k]

Yes, this. Single-player games worked just fine (even PS+ games as I've set my console to be primary). The only exception was DA:I - for some reason it wants to contact "Dragon Age servers" on launch, even when not playing multiplayer; but that was rectified by just disabling networking on the PS4. I suppose this would have worked in PvZ as well.

Re:

[qwak23]

Unfortunately, didn't look closely at the package when we bought it, on the box it states that a connection is required. Getting home we found out that PvZ doesn't just require a connection, it requires PS+, I'd have passed on it for that reason alone except my significant other really, REALLY wanted it and isn't as "principled" as I'd sometimes wish ;)

We ended up getting a PS+ account in order to play it, maybe it would have worked after initial sign in with networking disabled, I suppose I could always te

Re:

[marsu_k]

Pretty much any online game requires PS+ - there are some exceptions, most (all?) subscription-based games don't need it, and some F2P games work without it. Personally, I hardly ever do online multiplayer, but still find PS+ to be worth it for the free (ok, this being /. so surely someone will nitpick about it - not free as you are paying a subscription but you get the point) games and cloud saves. YMMV.

Re:

[qwak23]

I've got no issue with PS+ being required for online multiplayer as I was a longtime xbox live subscriber with the 360, my only gripe with the game is that it has local offline split screen multiplayer and PS+ is required to access that mode as well.

Re:

[tlhIngan]

I more or less posted this on the last thread, I can't speak for Xbox One as I do not have one, but the PS4, it's games, disc or download work just fine without a network connection as long as THE GAME doesn't require an internet connection.

During the outage I only had 2 games I was unable to play, Destiny (where online is kinda the point) and Plants vs. Zombies Garden Warfare because for whatever reason EA requires a network connection on that game even though it has a local play mode. The rest worked, reg

Re:

[qwak23]

While it doesn't have a single player mode, you can "sim" one by creating a match and setting it to invite only, it just irks me that it includes an offline local multiplayer component that still requires a network connection.

Re:

[Rinikusu]

My favorite console is still my GBA Micro.

Re:

[antdude]

This is why I pretty much gave up with these online requirements.

Re:

[tlhIngan]

I've been a fan of physical game carts/discs that are 100% playable offline. Getting a new PS4 or Xbox One that "bundles" a download code for a game is a rip off if you have to download the game and have it call home every time you want to play. So when the online component is down, you can't download or play the downloaded game since it can't phone home. That's ridiculous. I skipped the Xbox One and PS4 for reasons like this. Even more so: 10 years from now when the authentication server goes offline, your

Kinda fixed...

[XxtraLarGe]

Last night, I tried to add a code on their website for my 1 year PSN membership renewal.The card says you can add the number on a PS3, PS4 or PC. When I entered it on my MacBook Pro, I got an error saying "You can't add this card on a PC." It took about 15 minutes for the PlayStation store to load on my PS3, and then I was able to add the code. It makes no sense that I couldn't add the card from the web page though, since it said specifically that I should be able to on the card. Whatever.

I was more disapp

"Supposedly"?

[wonkey_monkey]

Sony PlayStation Network Back Up Now, Supposedly

Supposedly? How about finding out whether it is or not, and then telling us? If you really can't wait to make a story of the things you hear other people saying, the word to use is "reportedly."

"Supposedly" just makes you sound clueless.

You wouldn't catch the BBC tacking on "supposedly." And at least Fox have the chutzpah to just state the things they're not sure of as fact.

Get your own backup!

[thedonofdons]

No idea when somebody's "CLOUD" would rain!
http://popularbloggingtopics.c... [popularblo...topics.com]