Credit Card Breach May Cost Sony $24 Billion

[erztez]

Please, I'm asking kindly, just leave the thread

I know your points may be valid, but seriously, we have a serious issue on our hands here. If SCE gets totally fucked over by this, it's going to massively shake up the industry. Worst case scenario, if this totally destroys PSN:-

-No PSN means that indie devs that previously released onto the PSN now have to stick to the PC or move to XBL which has been known to not treat indie devs that well, meaning a decline in indie developer growth and recognition

-The only main competitor for hardcore gaming consoles will be the 360, and to be fair that's not going to be a good thing.

-No more PSN also means that owners out there of PS3s and (possibly) only PS3s are buggered, since that means no more games released for PS3, no more PSN, no more support for anything.

We just ask for peace right now, not debate

Uhm...just a short and succinct question.

If you want peace, and not debate, what exactly are you doing in a forum thread?
Aren't debates exactly what places like these are for?

Also, capitalism has its benefits.
If Sony goes down, someone else will replace it. It's the way of the words, as of now.

 

[jackpipsam]

It only does loss of profit

 

[erztez]

Oh yeah - you are right. The PS3 is evil and the way it's being marketed with *gasp* adverts saying that it's a console that you can play games on is going to bring down the entire industry. How could I have missed that?

Well, if you feel compelled to misunderstand my points, feel free to do so. It's a free internet after all.

What I was trying to allude to is that the PS3(and the X360, wouldn't want to seem biased), are pretty much the sole reason why todays games are all flash and no substance(see Killzone 3).

 

[thepyrethatburns]

How do we know they're not insured against significant parts of the $24 billion in losses? It's not uncommon for corporations to carry business interruption insurance. Or that they can't leverage existing assets and revenue into long-term debt with which to cover immediate losses? Your analysis is entirely based on Sony having to cover losses out of operating income. That's not necessarily the case. If they can cover the losses from other sources like insurance or debt and stay ahead of their losses, then $24 billion may not be that crippling.

And Apple could do so easily. As we speak, it's got $66 billion in cold, hard, liquid cash laying around.

Fair enough, I don't know what the level of their insurance is.

 

[-|-]

Oh yeah - you are right. The PS3 is evil and the way it's being marketed with *gasp* adverts saying that it's a console that you can play games on is going to bring down the entire industry. How could I have missed that?

Well, if you feel compelled to misunderstand my points, feel free to do so. It's a free internet after all.

What I was trying to allude to is that the PS3(and the X360, wouldn't want to seem biased), are pretty much the sole reason why todays games are all flash and no substance(see Killzone 3).

If you really believe that the PS3/XBOX are the cause of that then you are seriously deluded. The hardware itself is not the problem with the industry. You could make an argument about development costs causing risk aversion and lack of innovation, but that applies to all platforms when you are looking at AAA titles. More powerful hardware = better graphics = higher costs, it's pretty obvious. The PS3 in and of itself is not to blame, and neither is the xbox.

And, if you don't like Killzone 3 then the reasonable thing to do would just be to not buy it. You can choose to decide that consoles are evil instead, but that isn't the reaction of sane person.

Personally I think that 2011 is turning out to be a good year to be a gamer. I've not had so many games on pre-order as I've got now for a long time.

 

[deserteagleeye]

Come on Sony! Get your sh*t together! My Spring Break is almost oveeeeeeer! T_T

 

[bam13302]

im glad stopped buying consoles at the ps2
apologies to everyone who bought the ps3
if steam got hacked i would be furious

 

[Ainsley Bartlett]

He only arrives at the $24 billion by multiply $300 per record by the total number of records in Sony's possession and subject to breach.

At a guess I'd say he means data records rather music (Unless I've misundestood you).

It's not even by the "number of records" but the number of user accounts.

Also there are 4 user accounts on my PS3, one for myself and three more for my sister, brother and a third so I could screw around with save games. Only one of them has ever had a credit card used with them. It's so easy to create new accounts yet I think like most people only 1 of the accounts per system actually has ever had a credit card used on it.

Agreed, I have accounts 3 on my system, a friend has 3 on theirs and a few of the other posters have multiple accounts on theirs. It looks like you can probably divide 77 million by a factor of 1.5 - 2. Coupled with the fact that a lot of the (say 50 million actual individuals as a guess (yes, I'll admit that I've pulled that figure out of my ass, but I think it's a reasonable, if conservative, figure)) users have either never bought dlc or have used a prepaid card on the system. I think if CC details have been compromised it will be a low percentage of users that have actually been affected.

Personally, I really like Sony so hope that they are not too affected by this, but they need to learn to take security more seriously than being just for anti-piracy purposes. I'm glad there is competition in the console market, look at all the s***e that gets released on the DS which doesn't really have competition, though that could be just because it's a Nintendo product (which I also really like).

 

[Popido]

As for Sony, maybe not bankrupt, they do make the occasional decent TV. Lose their gaming division? Yes, please...

Huh - that makes no sense at all. Why? If you neither own a PS3 or plan on purchasing one why does it's mere existence bother you so much?

For anybody reading your posts it looks like you are one of those people that needs to validate their own purchases and lifestyle choices by trashing those of others. Don't worry about this though - it's quite common for people to do this; it's a crutch that helps them feel like they belong.

As I stated before, I DO own a PS3, just that I never gave Sony any money for it.
And yes, the fact that the PS3 exists does bother me, it's a sign of deeper problems within the game industry(not the PS3 hardware itself, but the way it's being marketed and supported).

As for me needing to validate my own purchases, well...that would only be the case if I felt that my purchases needed any validation, wouldn't it?
As it stands, I don't feel that they do, especially from random people on the internet
If I ever feel the need to buy a 20ft golden statue of Xenu, you better believe I will do just that.

Please, I'm asking kindly, just leave the thread

I know your points may be valid, but seriously, we have a serious issue on our hands here. If SCE gets totally fucked over by this, it's going to massively shake up the industry. Worst case scenario, if this totally destroys PSN:-

-No PSN means that indie devs that previously released onto the PSN now have to stick to the PC or move to XBL which has been known to not treat indie devs that well, meaning a decline in indie developer growth and recognition

-The only main competitor for hardcore gaming consoles will be the 360, and to be fair that's not going to be a good thing.

-No more PSN also means that owners out there of PS3s and (possibly) only PS3s are buggered, since that means no more games released for PS3, no more PSN, no more support for anything.

We just ask for peace right now, not debate

I suggest you to take a note from your own advice and leave. Who the fuck...

...
Indie devs are not some dying breed that we must babysit. TBH theres some really shitty indies doing better than enough atm. They'll move on to other platforms if must. If they dont survive there, then tough luck.

Thank god if that concept of 'hardcore gaming console' dies. 360 will be fine. Remember PS2?

Not really the best time to talk about PSN collapsing.

And stop fearmongering! You fearmongering you! /clenching fist

 

[JDKJ]

Your forgetting that many of these "losses" aren't actual out-of-pocket losses. They're touchy-feely losses like "diminished customer trust and confidence"churn and "the extrapolated value of customer loss resulting from turnover or diminished acquisition rates" and "discounts for future products and services." Those aren't real world costs and therefore aren't paid out of by real world income -- not in the sense of being a debit on Sony's books.

Moreover, the OP's math is a fuzzy as fuzzy math can be. He only arrives at the $24 billion by multiply $300 per record by the 77 million total number of records in Sony's possession and subject to breach. But that assumes that each and every record in Sony's possession has been breached. At this point and on the known facts, that $25 billion figure is about as accurate as any other number I randomly pulled outta my ass.

Fair enough and that's why I mentioned sensationalism at the end of my post. Even if it wasn't sensationalist reporting, it would be unlikely that Sony would have to pay that much in the end.

However, my main goal was to argue against the idea that Sony could weather a 24 billion dollar loss much less easily. While Sony is a giant from our perspective, they are not THAT big. Frankly, I'm not sure that Microsoft could weather a 24.5 billion dollar loss. Microsoft's anti-trust settlement in 2003 was, by way of comparison, 2.6 billion and that was considered to be a large hit against Microsoft.

So I stand by my closing statement. IF Sony did have to pay 24.5 billion, they'd be out of business.

How do we know they're not insured against significant parts of the $24 billion in losses? It's not uncommon for corporations to carry business interruption insurance. Or that they can't leverage existing assets and revenue into long-term debt with which to cover immediate losses? Your analysis is entirely based on Sony having to cover losses out of operating income. That's not necessarily the case. If they can cover the losses from other sources like insurance or debt and stay ahead of their losses, then $24 billion may not be that crippling.

And Apple could do so easily. As we speak, it's got $66 billion in cold, hard, liquid cash laying around.

Apple market cap over $300 billion, over $50 billion in cash and no debt.

Sony market cap $30 billion and in debt.

Not quite in the same ballpark.

No, not at all. The point was made in response to the "not sure even Microsoft could weather it" point. Because Apple's $66 billion in cash says it can. And then some. With enough left over to buy the guys a round of drinks.

And that's why haters hate on Apple. Haters gonna hate. That's what they do: they hate.

 

[thepyrethatburns]

Also, capitalism has its benefits.
If Sony goes down, someone else will replace it. It's the way of the words, as of now.

Unlikely. The "buy in" cost is just too great. Microsoft had to burn large amounts of cash in order to sustain the Xbox 1. Not many companies can do that.

Also, out of the companies that can, not many companies would want to do that. Why jump into the console market when that money would be better spent developing the next Farmville? Part of capitalism is recognizing what your likely ROI is going to be. If I had the money and a burning desire to get into the video game business, I'd spend it on either a money-maker like Farmville or on a service like Onlive. Hardware has been a loss leader for everyone in the console market but Nintendo and Nintendo has the benefit of being well-established in the market.

What I was trying to allude to is that the PS3(and the X360, wouldn't want to seem biased), are pretty much the sole reason why todays games are all flash and no substance(see Killzone 3).

Yeah but, if you're going to go there, then you would have to go all the way back to the Playstation 1 for marketing to non-gamers.

Or, in other words:

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2001/6/6/

And, if you do that, then, logically, everyone who came in with the Playstation (which would probably be >80% of the Escapist) is also at fault. If capitalism works and games are all flash and no substance then that means Sony/Microsoft are fulfilling the demands of a market that wants all flash and no substance.

 

[Jodah]

And people wonder why no company wants to say "Okay, we screwed up. Sorry." Any one that does gets sued out the ass.

 

[Treblaine]

[

Personally, I really like Sony so hope that they are not too affected by this, but they need to learn to take security more seriously than being just for anti-piracy purposes.

My sentiments exactly.

 

[Carnagath]

I would implore the moderators of these fine forums to take a more severe stance against trolling than giving people 3 day probations. Rampant trolling has made most of these PSN threads almost unreadable, with specific people continuously trying to derail them with blatantly inflammatory statements and unfortunately many others taking the bait and replying to them. It's a sad time for the Escapist when one can find more civilized threads on the subject on freaking /v/. Please do something about it.

 

[erztez]

If you really believe that the PS3/XBOX are the cause of that then you are seriously deluded. The hardware itself is not the problem with the industry. You could make an argument about development costs causing risk aversion and lack of innovation, but that applies to all platforms when you are looking at AAA titles. More powerful hardware = better graphics = higher costs, it's pretty obvious. The PS3 in and of itself is not to blame, and neither is the xbox.

And, if you don't like Killzone 3 then the reasonable thing to do would just be to not buy it. You can choose to decide that consoles are evil instead, but that isn't the reaction of sane person.

Personally I think that 2011 is turning out to be a good year to be a gamer. I've not had so many games on pre-order as I've got now for a long time.

And, as I've said before and you chose to ignore, I clearly stated that I don't consider the hardware to be an issue(seeing as it's just a scaled down PC stuck into a plastic box).
Yes, and the lack of innovation is because of what? That's right, because Activision KNOWS that no matter what crap they put out, as long as they put Call of Duty in front of the name, console gamers will come flocking to buy it.(see: Apple)
The consoles themselves are fine, I actually liked the PS3 when it came out(OtherOS was fun), hell, I STILL like what I can do with it(running win95 right now). I just don't like the marketing philosophy behind it.
As to your big hardware=big graphics=big money, it IS pretty obvious. It works like THIS: "More expensive games+consumers who will buy anything you put out=no risk=no innovation"

And as to Killzone 3, I didn't buy it. I won't buy it. They DID hand it to me for free, and I spent about an hour laughing at it in 3D, and about an hour more vomiting afterwards.

As to 2011, yeah, it's not that bad actually, I've got Witcher 2 on pre-order(no DRM, would buy it even if it consisted entirely of staring at a black screen for 8 hours), Deus Ex 3 looks nice, guardedly optimistic about that, ME3, well, I sorta have to by now.

 

[erztez]

Also, capitalism has its benefits.
If Sony goes down, someone else will replace it. It's the way of the words, as of now.

Unlikely. The "buy in" cost is just too great. Microsoft had to burn large amounts of cash in order to sustain the Xbox 1. Not many companies can do that.

Also, out of the companies that can, not many companies would want to do that. Why jump into the console market when that money would be better spent developing the next Farmville? Part of capitalism is recognizing what your likely ROI is going to be. If I had the money and a burning desire to get into the video game business, I'd spend it on either a money-maker like Farmville or on a service like Onlive. Hardware has been a loss leader for everyone in the console market but Nintendo and Nintendo has the benefit of being well-established in the market.

What I was trying to allude to is that the PS3(and the X360, wouldn't want to seem biased), are pretty much the sole reason why todays games are all flash and no substance(see Killzone 3).

Yeah but, if you're going to go there, then you would have to go all the way back to the Playstation 1 for marketing to non-gamers.

Or, in other words:

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2001/6/6/

And, if you do that, then, logically, everyone who came in with the Playstation (which would probably be >80% of the Escapist) is also at fault. If capitalism works and games are all flash and no substance then that means Sony/Microsoft are fulfilling the demands of a market that wants all flash and no substance.

Hmm, first point might be true, to which I can only respond with a content "Meh"
Second point is not.
The PS1 and hell, even the first Xbox and PS2 were consoles, not PCs stuck in a small plastic case.
There was no direct link between let's say, Soul Calibur 3 and Half Life.
Consoles were what they were designed to be, toys.
Ain't nothing wrong with that, I still play with my PS2.

Also:
[link]http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/34324/Class_Action_Lawsuit_Brought_Against_Sony_Over_PSN_Data_Breach.php[/link]

Called it!

 

[THE_MUFFIN_MAN15]

This is why I buy prepaid psn cards.