So, looks like the ps3 is completely hacked.

[MikeyLSU]

yea, i'm sure the devs getting $2.00 to $2.50 per copy for god of war 3 would jump all over this plan...

sorry but this is one of the dumbest ideas.

exactly, more likely a pay per use plan would go like MMORPG type games.

Maybe you buy the game discounted at $15 or something, but have to pay $10-$15 per month to play it.

But I woudln't expect anything like that anytime soon.

 

[Minjin]

yea, i'm sure the devs getting $2.00 to $2.50 per copy for god of war 3 would jump all over this plan...

sorry but this is one of the dumbest ideas.

I proposed a payment plan not a pricing scale. Dumb is not being able to understand that and debate it intelligently.

 

[Ross Ridge]

yea, i'm sure the devs getting $2.00 to $2.50 per copy for god of war 3 would jump all over this plan...

Developers would go nuts over a pay-to-play plan. They wouldn't getting $2 per copy, they'd be getting $2 per hour. That's what many game devlopers and publishers think they really deserve. Never mind pirate or used copies, anyone who plays God of War 3 a second time is getting a second copy for free.

It's only a stupid idea because consumers would never go for it. It's not like developers haven't tried it in early online games and Internet cafes.

 

[Anteaus]

Developers would go nuts over a pay-to-play plan. They wouldn't getting $2 per copy, they'd be getting $2 per hour. That's what many game devlopers and publishers think they really deserve. Never mind pirate or used copies, anyone who plays God of War 3 a second time is getting a second copy for free.

It's only a stupid idea because consumers would never go for it. It's not like developers haven't tried it in early online games and Internet cafes.

Developers would loathe this. The average game takes 8-12 hours to beat. Most average gamers only play through a game once, if they even finish at all. That's 16-24 dollars average per game. Even if they lost 1/3 of sales directly due to piracy, they would make more money selling a game for 50-60 dollars with an open license, as they do now. Also, by charging by the hour there is a disincentive to keep playing after you've beaten the game.

In order to even make near what they make now per unit, they would literally have to make games twice as long, doubling development costs, pass the costs off by doubling the price per hour, and then hoping that people will even keep paying to finish the damn thing. Only the best games would even break even, shrinking the developer pool by large margins and creating a quasi monopoly for the few developers that survive. Net profit margins would be so tight that only the developers will lots of money could even gamble with it.

Pay to play for online games only works because part of the profits goes into further development, thus the incentive to keep playing. For single player games, there is no additional development, no reason to keep playing after completion, and thus would be a commercial failure.

 

[Ross Ridge]

Developers would loathe this. The average game takes 8-12 hours to beat. Most average gamers only play through a game once, if they even finish at all. That's 16-24 dollars average per game. Even if they lost 1/3 of sales directly due to piracy, they would make more money selling a game for 50-60 dollars with an open license, as they do now.

Developers don't get anywhere near $50 or $60 dollars when they sell a game. After Sony, Microsoft, Walmart and/or Valve take their cut, they're lucky to make $25. But whatever number you want to believe developers make now they believe they could make more, by charging $2, $5 or whatever an hour, if they could just get consumer to accept such a system. Like I said, they've already tried. Valve didnt't create a whole an Internet cafe licencing scheme because they thought they'd lose money on the deal. (And I'd also note that they have all the infrastructure in place to turn their Steam "subscriptions" into a real subscription service.)

Also, by charging by the hour there is a disincentive to keep playing after you've beaten the game.

So what? Unless developers are charging by the hour there's little incentive for them care.

The fact is that some sort of pay-per-use scheme the holy grail of any content provider. They all wish we could go back to days buying a ticket to a movie was the dominant form entertainment. The movie industry has been in decline since Gone with the Wind, the movie companies area having to settle with trying to make money from DVDs and broadcast rights. TV executives at one time were drooling at the prospect of pay-per-view TV, thinking they could sell all their TV shows that way and make a killing. At one point people in the gaming industry were specuating, hoping really, that games with monthly subscription fees like Ultima Online and EverQuest were the wave the future and all major games would use this much more profiitable model. Tons of money got dumped into games like these, even before World of Warcraft showed how insanely profitable it could be.

The problem is while pay-per-use would be much profitable for any content provider, that's only true if consumer's are willing to put up with it. So you've got more people watching a movie on DVD or on TV than at a theatre. People only paying for porn on pay-per-view TV. And only certain kinds of games that are able to convince people to shell out cash even on a monthly basis.

So yes, developers would make a lot less money charging by the hour. Consumers wouldn't buy a video game product sold this way. But they all drool at the potential amount of money they could make. The attach rate for all the consoles is in the single digits, while the average American gamer spends over a dozen hours a week playing games. The average gamer doesn't have a heck of a lot games, but he does spent a lot time playing them.

 

[Anteaus]

deleted by poster

 

[drbrock]

has the ps3 been hacked yet for mkv support?

 

[novasatori]

not yet afaik

it does have the ability to read ntfs now though

 

[her209]

Has Sony begun banning PS3 from the PlayStation Network? Reason I ask is because I see Craigslist posting for a "low" price so I'm wondering if they got banned and the owner was trying to unload it.

 

[her209]

Judge allows Sony to unveil visitors to GeoHot PS3 jailbreaking site
http://www.slashgear.com/judge-allo...ors-to-geohot-ps3-jailbreaking-site-07138253/

Apparently, the judge presiding over the case has agreed to let Sony uncover the IP addresses of all the people who visited the website.

Along with allowing Sony to get the visitor data from GeoHot’s website Sony has also been allowed to subpoena YouTube and Google to get data linked to GeoHot and his postings and his Twitter account is fair game as well.

Wow. Sony is out for blood.

 

[her209]

Anonymous sets its sights on Sony
http://www.next-gen.biz/news/anonymous-targets-sony
http://www.crunchgear.com/2011/04/04/anonymous-targets-sony-over-ps3-hacking/

 

[gorcorps]

Has Sony begun banning PS3 from the PlayStation Network? Reason I ask is because I see Craigslist posting for a "low" price so I'm wondering if they got banned and the owner was trying to unload it.

AFAIK, no. They threatened it but it became pretty apparent that they had no clear cut way of separating the hackers and legit users anymore. Even the email threats weren't directed properly, as some people who haven't even heard of the hack had received emails.

I also believe Sony doesn't have the capability to ban single consoles, but only accounts from accessing PSN. I may be wrong though.

 

[BD2003]

Surely they can ban individual consoles based on the mac address of the ethernet.

 

[gorcorps]

Surely they can ban individual consoles based on the mac address of the ethernet.

I don't know, I'm just going off of what I read which I don't remember where it came from. All I remember was there was some difference between how Sony labeled their consoles from how MS did it which lets MS ban specific 360s but Sony couldn't ban specific PS3s, only accounts. This may be wrong, or may have changed.

 

[DivideBYZero]

I don't know, I'm just going off of what I read which I don't remember where it came from. All I remember was there was some difference between how Sony labeled their consoles from how MS did it which lets MS ban specific 360s but Sony couldn't ban specific PS3s, only accounts. This may be wrong, or may have changed.

Yeah, a simple change in the firmware would allow the broadcast and recording of a MAC against a user and it's syonara PSN access. If it didn't already happen in 3.60.

 

[Ross Ridge]

Surely they can ban individual consoles based on the mac address of the ethernet.

The MAC address is only used locally on the logical Ethernet in your home, it's not transmitted as part of normal IP trafic over the Internet. The PSN servers would have to ask the PlayStation 3 to send its MAC address (or any other unique identifier) explicitly and modified firmware could simply provide a fake id.

It's different on the Xbox 360 because Microsoft's servers can still trust the 360's firmware. When the server asks the console for the unique id, presumably in some cryptologically secure way to prevent man-in-the-middle attacks, it knows that the console isn't lying.

 

[Sadaiyappan]

How do I install custom firmware on my ps3? I want to setup a password when I login to my PSN account.

 

[DivideBYZero]

How do I install custom firmware on my ps3? I want to setup a password when I login to my PSN account.

AFAIK, custom firmware and PSN account are two things that will never again go together...