PS3 encryption keys now on the net

[HammR25]

But who really cares?

 

Sure, Sony is pissed, as are some of the developers and publishers. However, they DO have options. Rather than litigate crappy business models, maybe they should be exercising them.

 

And I pirate nothing. I just want the console access to play / tinker / build. Maybe we get a PS3 home brew / indie scene now. All good.

Anyone who plays online should care:

 

http://attackofthefanboy.com/news/reason-ps3-jailbreak-bad-gamers/

[potatohead]

No disagreement there. Seems to me, we are at a impasse though.

 

On one hand, we've got cheaters. On the other, we've got the "if you can't open it, you don't own it crowd".

 

There isn't a good resolution to that.

 

My personal preference would be to simply rent or lease the console. If it's SOLD to somebody, they own it and get to do stuff. For me personally, there is absolutely no discussion on that point.

 

On the other hand, if it's not sold, but rented or leased, then people don't get to do stuff, because it's not theirs.

 

What if a console was inexpensive and came with a monthly fee? That covers online access, and warranty repair and some other things that insure a controlled experience?

 

Doing that isn't anywhere near as sexy as owning something, but then again, owning things comes with some disadvantages, clearly.

 

The core matter at issue is the idea that we are selling people things, when the truth is, for video games online, we are selling them experiences, so why not just own up to that?

 

I've argued that point for a long time. There are many advantages to not selling the console, and the option to actually BUY the console could still be on the table too, just without access to the secure online play area. Maybe there is a insecure area, where people can and will do what they will, and the secure one just competes.

 

Sure would be interesting to see that play out.

 

In one corner, you pay $100, and $15 a month, or something, and then you subscribe to the online games you want to play. It's managed, and you do nothing but play when and how you want to play, and it's secure, and there is no shit.

 

In the other corner, you buy the console, and purchase titles to play, offline and online, and if you play online, you are in the "anything goes zone".

 

Wonder who would choose what and why?

 

I know I would easily subscribe, if I had no worries on hardware / games, if I were gaming online regularly. No brainer. It's a great experience, and no hassles.

 

For most everything else, I think I would buy, and deal with the potential crap online, but also get interesting mods, and such.

 

IMHO, there is no reasonable solution to this that involves the actual sale of something to somebody, and that's the rub.

 

If it's MINE, then it's simply MINE. There isn't any getting around that. If it's THEIRS, well then it's THEIRS, and a whole different set of expectations.

[SlowCoder]

Potatohead,

 

Interesting post, and not bad thinking either. What you said is basically (to me anyway) the same as buying/leasing from a car dealership.

 

On one hand, you buy the car, and once paid off, it's yours. No more payments. But you're liable to pay all repairs and maintenance.

 

On the other hand, if you lease, then it's not yours and you have to be careful how you use it, and at the end of the agreement, it goes back to the company (or becomes trash fodder). But you don't have to worry about the secondary costs. You're never done paying for it, and don't think the game companies are gonna be easy on your checkbook.

 

I agree with you that if I go out a buy a console, the entire thing should be MINE. Sony or MS or whoever would have NO RIGHT to tell me what I can do with it. However, as it stands with the EULAs, even when we purchase the console, we are not purchasing the software that is installed, or will be installed, on it. Per the EULA, we are simply licensed to use the software until such time as the manufacturer says we can't any more. Ware not allowed to make any changes to the software (that isn't owned by us) outside boundaries set by the EULA, which are typically limited to installing other software that has been sanctioned by that manufacturer.

[potatohead]

For now, and that's the impasse.

 

Realistically, hardware manufacturers are trying to blend software and hardware to get the advantages of both, while pushing cost and risk onto users.

 

That's not ok with a whole lot of people.

 

And, BY the way, you CAN do whatever you like with those things you own. The current laws are all about who you tell about it, or instruct how to do it themselves. This leads to bizzare things like some instructions, or a bit of math, being labeled "a device", despite being on a T-shirt, song lyrics, a tattoo, etc...

 

It's going to continue to be a very interesting time. If they undo the right of first sale, there are lots of other negative consequences. That's why there is this "sardware" out there, trying to split the middle, leaving users with high costs and risks.

 

That's not ok either.

 

Technology is supposed to deliver enough value to be worth the investment in it. Often, these days, that's quite marginal, and nobody really wants to talk about that, choosing to litigate instead of innovate, and it's sad.

 

I, for one, won't have any part of it.

 

It is entirely possible to deal with this interconnected age we live in, and it's getting very tiresome watching old models being used to write very bad law.

 

And, I suspect either the geeks will win this one, or we enter a very dark, authoritarian age, where the very right to read and learn will be questioned and appear suspicious, or worse.

[Tr3vor]

I think this is were the shit hits the fan.

 

Sony didn't freak out when people hack the ps2 or ps1. why the ps3. who cares? The majority of people are just gonna stick to buying games and playing no homebrew or anything like that. I'm not, at least untill they put psn out of its misery. when they dump psn on ps3, I'm gonna play it safe, untill I know sony can't lock out my ps3 or something for any reason.

 

Like what people think sony did to the psp, they are gonna probably make some malware that bricks the ps3 out on the internet.

 

If thier freaking out about loosing money, they should stop spending 1000000000000000$ on a single game, like was it 70 million for gran turismo. I don't need professional voice acting or whatever. I don't even like voice acting in games. with text, you can imagine how bad ass your character is without some stupid voice actor ruining it for you *cough metroid *cough.

 

all this homebrew and crap is gonna make people want a Ps3, too, so why are they whining?

[rockman_x_2002]

Potatohead,

 

Reading your comments actually puts me more in mind of what cell phone companies do with smartphones. Take out a two-year plan, and you get the phone at a cut-rate price, but you pay for the monthly service for the next two years. The same principle could be applied to consoles wherein the two years, the console doesn't exactly belong to you, per say.

 

After two years is up, the phone is fully paid for and now fully belongs to you to do with what you'd like. Likewise for the console. But to continue using the service, you still have to pay monthly, and have to abide by the network rules, lest you risk being cut from the network. Does it mean the console ceases to function? Probably not. You could likely still use it offline. But you wouldn't be able to jump back on the network with it.

 

That is a possible solution for the companies. Of course, it's not ideal for the end-user.

 

Instead I propose the following solution: separate the hardware from the OS. Sell the console with nothing pre-installed except a basic BIOS that allows it to boot the machine to its disc drive (or whatever media drive it uses, whether it's disc-based, flash media, USB, etc.) The OS comes on a disc pre-shipped with the console, and is pre-installed at the factory, to be activated by the end-user upon initial setup. This ensures a legitimate OS from the factory that is allowed to communicate with the official company-owned servers.

 

Now, if the user wants to hack the console to do something else, they're more than welcome to write their own OS (which would not violate software EULAs since they would be using their own software, possible GPL'd). This alternative OS could then run homebrew applications without penalty because no base software exists on the hardware except for a basic BIOS. However, the drawback to the end-user is that this alternative OS cannot (and probably would not) guarantee that purchased software published by the company or third-parties will run on the machine while using this alternative OS. It can also cause the machine to be flagged if it tries to connect to the official company servers for online play, and would require the user to re-install the original OS, then patch up-to-date, in order to further have online access. The only workaround would be privately-owned servers that could serve the game through the custom OS. But trying to play through the custom OS would effectively bar you from playing on the official channels for the duration. Not a permanent ban, mind you. Just locked out unless you're using the official OS itself.

 

Also, the private key for digital signatures should ideally be tied somehow into the official OS as opposed to the hardware. There should also be a failsafe system for being able to change said key for other software products for just such an occasion as this. Naturally a custom OS would have no need for private keys for execution and thus would be open, but software written for the official OS would.

 

In other words, treat the consoles just like we treat PCs today. They come pre-shipped with Windows installed and can run Windows software. But some people want Linux, so they wipe the system and install that instead. And while there's software like Wine, which can allow you to run some Windows software under Linux, not everything works 100%. That's the risk you take. Of course, some people like both worlds and want to dual-boot. So perhaps it could be possible to have the console do that, but it would need to be done in such a way where the official OS is sufficiently "locked down" that it can't be exploited while in the alternative OS.

[potatohead]

There should also be a failsafe system for being able to change said key..

 

That's splitting the middle again. Won't work.

 

This is why I am seriously talking about the rentals. When people don't own things, it's a whole different scene, and here's a very interesting question:

 

A game is made, where a significant part of the experience is online. Does anybody own the game?

 

Hell no they don't, so why even bother selling the client, like it's some software copy they could own. Or worse, sometimes it's done where there is a tiny bit of value offline, but not really enough to warrant the price, but somebody feels good about it being sold, so it happens.

 

Truth is, that's a subscription, not a sale.

 

I used to laugh at the Evercrack sales. $39.99 + $15 a month. What is the $39.99 for? To get you to commit, not that you actually bought anything besides a box.

 

The problem with these kinds of things is when you sell somebody something, it's THEIRS. They will open it up and do stuff. That's ok, despite what anybody says. At the core, it's ok.

 

On the other hand, a rental means don't open it, and why open it, when you don't own it? See how that all works?

[rockman_x_2002]

On the other hand, a rental means don't open it, and why open it, when you don't own it? See how that all works?

 

I completely understand where you're coming from, and in theory it's a valid solution. However, in practice, the fact that equipment is rented does not, at times, deter hackers from hacking about.

 

For example, consider satellite receivers. These are more often than not rented and not bought outright. They are owned by the satellite service provider and not the end-user, though the box resides in the end-user's home, and the end-user may/may not have paid to have the receiver in their home. But those that want to hack the box to game the system do still tend to do that.

 

Likewise, contract cell phones. Take my Samsung Galaxy S, for instance. It's new, and has a two-year contract. Until that two-year contract is up, it's not officially mine. But is there anything physically stopping me from rooting it and installing custom firmwares and such on it? Not really. It could void the warranty, and if my provider discovered it they could potentially terminate service to it. Of course the phone does everything I want without rooting so there's no need to do that. Just saying.

 

My point is, though, rental of machines as opposed to outright ownership does sound fine on paper. And I don't mean to knock your idea in the very least. But at the end of the day, "Hatas gon' hate, hackas gon' hack."

[potatohead]

It absolutely doesn't deter people from hacking about. But, the law, and the expectations are then clear. Additionally, if the scenario I outlined above was put into play, there is a place for hacking, where it's completely acceptable.

 

With those things in play, it's a whole different game. The existing law covers rental devices nicely. No worries, no changes. Just nail 'em.

 

Devices that are purchased are a challenge on all fronts, and a separation of online venues means we have either the "wild west", or managed Disneyland.

 

So then, people can pay for Disneyland, and have some solid expectation that it is Disneyland, and everybody else finds their way elsewhere.

 

In the US, if it's not yours, and you hack it, there will be penalties. If it is yours, then it's yours! And the conflict is gone, only leaving choices all around. Publishers, authors, players, CRACKERS, hackers, etc...

[Reaperman]

Renting game hardware would solve the problem of game companies not being able to make the lives of their customers as miserable as possible. It does this in about the most ass way possible, but it's no worse than some of the other moves I've seen recently. It also solves the problem of me wondering if I'm going to continue participating in modern gaming.

 

Of course the entire reason we have home consoles is because people wanted to *own* hardware rather than paying for its use at arcades. If sony wants to set up 'Sony Centers' where I can go and play on PS4 hardware with like minded individuals I'd be down for that. Just nobody use the term 'arcade' and it'll take kids at least half a decade to realize what happened.

Edited January 15, 2011 by Reaperman

[potatohead]

Exactly!!

 

I would trade all the console issues for a return to PC gaming, and or arcades. The idea of being "sold" a bill of goods, with all manner of ugly things attached isn't desirable.

 

Why not just come to acceptance on that?

 

Then we have law that makes sense, and people have options. Let Disneyland compete with "the wild west", and everybody finds a path that makes sense.

 

I would choose "the wild west", because I like to open my stuff, do mods, and generally have technical fun with the stuff I paid for. On the other hand, maybe it makes sense to go to Disneyland sometimes too. All depends on whether or not the game experience is worth it, right?

 

With a dynamic like that, worthy experiences would end up in Disneyland, compelling, totally worth it, so no worries!

 

There would also be a lot of good stuff happening in indie / home brew / do it yourself land as well.

 

It's a win-win.

 

The way it is right now is a power struggle that's all kind of ugly, and it just doesn't have to be.

 

And think about it. How many games are released now that are worth $60? Of those, how many have some downloadable portion that is necessary to really get the full experience? How are those numbers growing, and what does that really mean for "ownership" in the sense that all of us are used to?

 

Disneyland might be cheaper, and in the end, all people get from the majors anyway. It's not like the stuff is owned in the real sense anyway, why not get some benefit out of it, like repair service and such?

 

Flip it around then, and actually buying a console is really a investment! Might cost more up front, but then tapping into home brew / indie / and whatever else might really be worth keeping over time, and that would be the norm for that kind of thing.

 

The truth is, "owning" hardware isn't really cheaper any more. It's pleasurable, convenient, etc... but it's just not cheap. Buy a new machine every so often, buy the same games again, replace broken media, subscribe online, and it all adds up!

 

One big, and to me, notable thing happening is the constant escalation of the size and scale of the team required to really knock the big games home! Perhaps the economies of scale top out somewhere?

 

Anyone think of that?

 

Back when it was possible to make a hit game on a small budget, and with a small team, owning things made sense. Still does. But for the big projects, does it?

 

Fair question, IMHO.

 

With the option of rental / subscription on the table, maybe those economies of scale change, and it pays to just play and have a good time.

 

Or, buy into something, actually do own it, and get to do all the stuff that comes with ownership, like indie / homebrew / trade, buy, sell used, etc...

Edited January 15, 2011 by potatohead

[potatohead]

(And to be clear, I'm just exploring the idea here, all responses, even heated ones, just fine! Let's see where it goes!)

[Austin]

Sony didn't freak out when people hack the ps2 or ps1. why the ps3. who cares?

 

With the prior PlayStation systems, it was a hassle to run copied software. The average Joe didn't want to get a mod chip installed or figure out how to use various swap discs, springs and Action Replays (for the PS1 days). Pirating on those systems was mostly kept in the underground. Now with the PS3 and the encryption key being cracked, NONE of that is needed. Anyone will be able to play copied games effortlessly, and that's why it is a big deal.

 

Someone mentioned the Dreamcast being blown wide open.. People were able to make self-bootable discs that didn't require any sort of mod, and that's what essentially is happening now for the PS3. I remember when that happened, too--People were passing out Dreamcast discs like it was the cool thing to do. That definitely played a part in that system's demise and Sony knows that from a financial standpoint, this could do some damage.

 

all this homebrew and crap is gonna make people want a Ps3, too, so why are they whining?

 

Haha, yeah, I think they will at least move some hardware with this. I'm already thinking about buying one now.. It's going to be a monster machine for emulation, and like someone else said, it will let me retire my original modded XBOX.

[Mord]

They can claim all they want, but it looks like there isn't much they can do to fix the root of the problem. Short of retooling the PS3, or rushing the PS4 into production.

Or making every bit of software released thus far blacklisted.

 

That would certainly encourage developers and publishers to continue making new software for them.

[Mord]

Why would the air force need to hack their PS3s? They're already running linux on phat ps3s and it's not like they need to update them.

 

Because when their PS3s break down, they send them to Sony to be fixed. Sony reflashes the firmware on those PS3s they fix - removing OtherOS. The first time the air force got some PS3s back from them they were... well, beyond words.

[madmax2069]

They can claim all they want, but it looks like there isn't much they can do to fix the root of the problem. Short of retooling the PS3, or rushing the PS4 into production.

Or making every bit of software released thus far blacklisted.

 

That would certainly encourage developers and publishers to continue making new software for them.

 

Yeah encourage them to the point of madness to where every 3rd party drops them like a bad habit and moves to another platform.

[HammR25]

Of course the entire reason we have home consoles is because people wanted to *own* hardware rather than paying for its use at arcades. If sony wants to set up 'Sony Centers' where I can go and play on PS4 hardware with like minded individuals I'd be down for that. Just nobody use the term 'arcade' and it'll take kids at least half a decade to realize what happened.

How bout calling it a LAN party. I don't necessarily see any of that happening though since we already have in game voice chat so people can talk to their friends while each of them plays in their own home against each other.

[Reaperman]

Of course the entire reason we have home consoles is because people wanted to *own* hardware rather than paying for its use at arcades. If sony wants to set up 'Sony Centers' where I can go and play on PS4 hardware with like minded individuals I'd be down for that. Just nobody use the term 'arcade' and it'll take kids at least half a decade to realize what happened.

How bout calling it a LAN party. I don't necessarily see any of that happening though since we already have in game voice chat so people can talk to their friends while each of them plays in their own home against each other.

I'm out if they call it a LAN party.

I might start having lady troubles with a skeleton like 'went to a LAN party once' hanging in my closet.

Heck, I think that also kills any potential career in politics. I'd hate for that to come out in a mud-slinging campaign.

Edited January 15, 2011 by Reaperman

[potatohead]

Well, I'm cooked then.

 

I like LAN parties. Used to do some good ones with Serious Sam, and Q3A, Linux servers, bring your own client, and yes, the big projector we use at work is up on the wall for the alphas!

 

For a time, we had a big conference room that rocked for this kind of thing. Fire up the endless coffee machine, hook the stuff up, turn guest wireless on for somebody needing a driver, or to chat it up on a break, and go for it.

 

A modern day arcade would be networked for sure. Have the stand up games up and running, any advanced ones networked for multi-player action, and some cool atmosphere places for Internet / text / portable gaming. Put up a Intranet for the local High Score and bragging board too, perhaps with some pages showing on larger screens in the place, like what used to be done manually in the past.

 

One idea I had was a text message juke box! Text to TUNES, or #TUNES on your Twitter, and the music plays in queue. Vote 'em up or down for some extra fun.

 

The cover gets you a drink, small pile of tokens for the standups, and the Internet access pass for the day.

Edited January 15, 2011 by potatohead

[KrazyKaiju]

Most of the stories I've read seem to confirm that Sony is in full-on panic mode. I just hope they don't go completely insane and start requiring a persistent internet connection to play a game (ala Activision). I'm already disillusioned enough with this generation of consoles. Doing something like that would pretty much kill any enthusiasm I have left.

[+remowilliams]

Most of the stories I've read seem to confirm that Sony is in full-on panic mode.

 

They should be, they got pwned to the core. It's one hell of a hard way to learn that 'random number' <> 4...

[HammR25]

Most of the stories I've read seem to confirm that Sony is in full-on panic mode.

 

They should be, they got pwned to the core. It's one hell of a hard way to learn that 'random number' <> 4...

That reminds me of a Dilbert comic:

 

[Phredreeke]

Someone mentioned the Dreamcast being blown wide open.. People were able to make self-bootable discs that didn't require any sort of mod, and that's what essentially is happening now for the PS3. I remember when that happened, too--People were passing out Dreamcast discs like it was the cool thing to do. That definitely played a part in that system's demise and Sony knows that from a financial standpoint, this could do some damage.

 

Piracy did not kill the Dreamcast. Broadband wasn't as common back then and you couldn't copy GD-ROMs with a computer the way you could copy PS1 games.

 

It was Sega's bad reputation (hello 32x!) and Sony's massive PS2 hype that killed it.

[madmax2069]

Someone mentioned the Dreamcast being blown wide open.. People were able to make self-bootable discs that didn't require any sort of mod, and that's what essentially is happening now for the PS3. I remember when that happened, too--People were passing out Dreamcast discs like it was the cool thing to do. That definitely played a part in that system's demise and Sony knows that from a financial standpoint, this could do some damage.

 

Piracy did not kill the Dreamcast. Broadband wasn't as common back then and you couldn't copy GD-ROMs with a computer the way you could copy PS1 games.

 

It was Sega's bad reputation (hello 32x!) and Sony's massive PS2 hype that killed it.

 

+1

 

most people dont realize that fact. Sega was under because of the failed addons and system (the 32x, Sega CD, and saturn, although the Saturn wasn't really that much of a failure when compared to the 32x and sega cd but it didn't help matters), the lack of some 3rd party support due to Segas rep, and the huge hype of the PS2 (one was because it played DVDs).

 

but yeah you used the Dreamcast itself (or if you was lucky and owned a Dreamcast dev box) as a GD rom drive. The BBA and lan adapter only helped to add fuel to piracy on the Dreamcast (there was other methods from the get go). The Dreamcast was wide open from the start. But piracy was not the sole reason why Sega killed off the Dreamcast.

Edited January 16, 2011 by madmax2069

[Phredreeke]

most people dont realize that fact. Sega was under because of the failed addons and system (the 32x, Sega CD, and saturn, although the Saturn wasn't really that much of a failure when compared to the 32x and sega cd but it didn't help matters), the lack of some 3rd party support due to Segas rep, and the huge hype of the PS2 (one was because it played DVDs).

 

but yeah you used the Dreamcast itself (or if you was lucky and owned a Dreamcast dev box) as a GD rom drive. The BBA and lan adapter only helped to add fuel to piracy on the Dreamcast (there was other methods from the get go). The Dreamcast was wide open from the start. But piracy was not the sole reason why Sega killed off the Dreamcast.

 

You could use serial cable as well, but its datarate was so low it would take 20+ hours to rip a game. Also many games wouldn't fit on a CD-R without downsampling audio or recompressing FMVs.