|
|
Post by wyrdwad on Jun 29, 2011 11:10:55 GMT -5
Again, totally subjective. In my mind, they're not -- and a lot of these smaller companies are getting sales figures to back that up. Akiba's Trip, for example, sold gangbusters in Japan... at least, gangbusters for a company the size of Acquire.
Everything is relative. Bigger companies in Japan are hurting, but smaller companies -- the ones producing the really great games nowadays -- are generally doing pretty OK. I'm just hoping that continues...
Also, sorry for the long-winded, rambly posts last night. I should know better than to post on here after 1am, as I can never form a coherent thought that late. (: To summarize the main point I was hoping to get across:
In many ways, gamers are selfish beasts, purely BECAUSE everyone thinks, "oh, it's just video games, it's not anything important." But you have to keep in mind that games are made by people. Sony may seem like a big faceless mega-corporation, but it's full of salarymen who probably work crazy overtime just to put food on their tables. People trying to make a living and get by, and doing the best they can with the resources they have. And due to the nature of big business, they occasionally have NO CHOICE but to do things customers might not like, lest the company go out of business. And NOBODY would be happy if Sony went out of business -- I think we can all agree on that.
I just wish gamers would look at the big picture more often. When the PSN hack occurred, how many of you thought to yourselves, "Man, poor Sony -- they're really going to be hurting from this"? I suspect for any of you who have ever worked in the industry, that was probably your FIRST thought. People lost their jobs over the PSN hack, and it really wasn't Sony's fault at all -- pardon the tasteless simile, but it's like blaming a rape victim for what happened because of the way she was dressed. Sure, Sony could've been "wearing more clothes"... but just because they were dressed a bit skimpily doesn't mean they deserved what happened to them, nor does it make them RESPONSIBLE for what happened to them. The hackers are the ones who did wrong here, not Sony... but Sony was the one who paid for it.
Imagine how much it would suck if you were working there in network security, doing your job completely up to specifications... and then suddenly, the server got hacked and all hell broke loose. You honestly did everything you could... but does it matter? Nope. The public is out for your blood. They hate you now. You just got fired, and probably won't ever land a job in network security again. Despite doing nothing wrong.
It's unfair. And that's really my point here. Sony is a respectable, honorable company. As respectable and honorable as you can reasonably expect from a company that big, at the very least. And I believe gamers need to stop thinking only of themselves, and start thinking of the people slaving away to bring them their entertainment. Once you start doing that... Sony doesn't look so bad anymore.
-Tom
|
|
|
|
Post by muteKi on Jun 29, 2011 11:15:58 GMT -5
Do you take those poseurs from Cracked seriously? I think the first couple graphics say all I really need to on the matter regardless. |
|
|
|
Post by Ryu the Grappler on Jun 29, 2011 11:26:48 GMT -5
That first-person shooters exist and are really popular?
|
|
|
|
Post by wyrdwad on Jun 29, 2011 11:41:26 GMT -5
First-person shooters don't always have to look exactly the same, though. Case in point:  My favorite "FPS" of all time, Jumping Flash. Ignore the graphical quality for a second (as this WAS an early PS1 game), and focus on, say... the color palette, and the cartoony style. We need more of that in the modern FPS. -Tom |
|
|
|
Post by Warchief Onyx on Jun 29, 2011 11:58:28 GMT -5
I just wish gamers would look at the big picture more often. When the PSN hack occurred, how many of you thought to yourselves, "Man, poor Sony -- they're really going to be hurting from this"? I suspect for any of you who have ever worked in the industry, that was probably your FIRST thought. People lost their jobs over the PSN hack, and it really wasn't Sony's fault at all -- pardon the tasteless simile, but it's like blaming a rape victim for what happened because of the way she was dressed. Sure, Sony could've been "wearing more clothes"... but just because they were dressed a bit skimpily doesn't mean they deserved what happened to them, nor does it make them RESPONSIBLE for what happened to them. The hackers are the ones who did wrong here, not Sony... but Sony was the one who paid for it. You're right. That was absolutely tasteless. Way to trivialize rape and be borderline misogynistic! Stay classy, Tom. Stay classy. |
|
|
|
Post by muteKi on Jun 29, 2011 12:14:53 GMT -5
That first-person shooters exist and are really popular? And there's a lot of me-too-ism going on. Same as there was back in (insert gaming era here). If they're all practically the same at most only one, maybe two of them will be worth getting. |
|
|
|
Post by wyrdwad on Jun 29, 2011 12:35:49 GMT -5
I only used that simile because it's completely and totally apt. People make it sound like Sony was ASKING to be hacked. But they weren't... they were victims, pure and simple.
I fully admit it was a tasteless thing to say... but just try arguing against it. I think you'll find you can't.
-Tom
|
|
|
|
Post by muteKi on Jun 29, 2011 12:43:41 GMT -5
If I give a company my otherwise confidential or sensitive personal information there's an implied contract that (perhaps partially due to their size and economic strength) that they'll spare few expenses to make sure that said sensitive information stays secure and difficult to access? I suppose it is a bit naive to expect that they definitely will, but that doesn't mean they're not obligated to do it.
"The owners of that restaurant weren't asking to be infected with cockroaches!"
Jesus
|
|
|
|
Post by wyrdwad on Jun 29, 2011 13:05:06 GMT -5
My point: They DID spare PLENTY of expenses to make sure said sensitive information stayed secure and difficult to access. But they got hacked anyway, because the hackers were just THAT DETERMINED.
They did everything they were supposed to do. Could their security have been tighter? Sure. But should you EXPECT their security to have been tighter? Hell no. They're not Fort Knox, they're Sony. Nobody expected this to happen, and no one should be held responsible for it but the hackers who did it.
To use your cockroach example... imagine if someone had actually RELEASED hundreds of cockroaches into a restaurant. Like, it wasn't neglect on the owner's part that led to the cockroaches being there... it was the malicious actions of a less-than-scrupulous person.
Now, this quote applies. And all those people who complain that Sony's security wasn't tight enough would be the ones responding to this with, "But it's their own damned fault for not checking their customers' bags at the door and thoroughly searching them for cockroaches!"
-Tom
|
|
|
|
Post by muteKi on Jun 29, 2011 13:14:38 GMT -5
They did everything they were supposed to do. It was a SQL Injection that did them in! |
|
|
|
Post by Warchief Onyx on Jun 29, 2011 13:17:25 GMT -5
I only used that simile because it's completely and totally apt. People make it sound like Sony was ASKING to be hacked. But they weren't... they were victims, pure and simple. I fully admit it was a tasteless thing to say... but just try arguing against it. I think you'll find you can't. -Tom And it's also the act of someone desperate enough to sink as low as to actually use it. And I'd advise against ever using anything like that example again lest you continue to lower any sort of respect I have remaining for you (which is right now, very little). |
|
|
|
Post by wyrdwad on Jun 29, 2011 13:21:25 GMT -5
A good argument is a good argument. Good taste is irrelevant.
I don't even know what that is. All I know is, it's more than I know how to do, and more than most of the people I know know how to do. And probably not something they were expecting.
Plus, there's probably more to it than has been publicly announced. After all, if Sony gave step-by-step instructions on exactly how they were hacked, would-be hackers could then use that information to hack into OTHER networks. It makes total sense to me that there's probably a lot about this hack attempt that we don't know, and will NEVER know.
-Tom
|
|
|
|
Post by kitten on Jun 29, 2011 13:24:55 GMT -5
I'm afraid the rape analogy is making me drop out of this argument.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ryu the Grappler on Jun 29, 2011 13:29:05 GMT -5
And there's a lot of me-too-ism going on. Same as there was back in (insert gaming era here). If they're all practically the same at most only one, maybe two of them will be worth getting. The video game industry have always thrive on imitation of previous works. For every successful formula, there has been countless imitators, some of them good and others awful. And it's not even a modern trend either. Just look at the number of Pong clones back in the pre-Atari-era. |
|
|
|
Post by muteKi on Jun 29, 2011 13:34:57 GMT -5
The very short story is that SQL injection occurs when someone makes an entry in a database field that a SQL statement (which is basically the instructions the database uses to find entries) interprets as code. It's basically the same problem as memory violations in a typical program -- the code goes out of its memory space, which modifies memory used for other programs; done right it allows the functioning of important programs to be changed and can give the hacker control over the program, effectively.
The worst part of the typical SQL injection is that it's quite easy to defend against! Parametrization of DB entries (which prevents the data in the tables from being executed as code in the SQL statement) is probably the best way of doing so, but sanitization (preventing SQL reserved characters aren't used in any entries; this seems really easy to do with regular expressions but I don't do work on databases) and strong typing (which is to say that DB entries that hold numbers ONLY hold numbers, and entries that hold alphanumeric characters hold no punctuation, etc.) can help defend in a pinch but are more error-prone.
Long story short they were almost certainly some combination of lazy or irresponsible to be compromised so easily.
|
|
