Welcome to Coffee Talk! Let’s start off the day by discussing whatever is on your (nerd chic) mind. Every morning I’ll kick off a discussion and I’m counting on you to participate in it. If you’re not feelin’ my topic, feel free to start a chat with your fellow readers and see where it takes you. Whether you’re talking about videogames, those pesky Memphis Grizzlies, the Bin Laden attack being described on Twitter hours before the U.S. government acknowledged it, or wanting to hug awesome apps, Coffee Talk is the place to do it.
Gamasutra’s Colin Campbell wrote this excellent article on how the PlayStation Network outage has further devalued the PlayStation brand. Colin is awesome and his article is great, but I don’t think he went far enough. There’s no question that the PSN attack has damaged the PlayStation brand. It’s more than that though. The PSN outage has damaged the (already declining) Sony brand.
Remember when Sony was the premiere name in consumer electronics? There was a long stretch when the consumer electronics market was Sony, followed by everyone else. From televisions to audio components to laptops, Sony products were almost always best in class. A lot has changed since then. The company absolutely bombed in the modern portable audio space (which is funny because it basically created the market with the Walkman). PC manufacturers were able to offer computers that were almost as nice, but much cheaper. The television market got a lot more competitive, with Korean companies like LG and Samsung outdoing Sony in both price and performance.
For two console generations, Sony dominated the field. Its third go-round didn’t go nearly as well, for numerous reasons. Although the PlayStation 3 was starting to pick up steam globally, the PSN outage will definitely impact performance and perception. Rightly or wrongly, people will use the PSN outage to illustrate that Sony has lost its grip on yet another market.
What do you think? Will the damage be confined to to the PlayStation brand or is the Sony brand in jeopardy too? Or is all of this being overblown? Perhaps the PlayStation and Sony brands will be just fine by the end of the year. Kindly share your thoughts on the nebulous value of branding!
This really depends on how and what Sony PR does in the next few weeks and months. I hope they have a hell of a team or else Sony games will follow the path of Sega.
I agree with the source and your points. I'll take it a step further though. I think the PSN outage hurts the push to move gaming into the cloud or offer a digital only store somewhat. Before this take down, Zipper released SOCOM 4. I'm pretty sure they are pissed at how their multiplayer game has done sales wise the last 2 weeks and going forward. That would perhaps apply to any publisher or dev selling wares on the PS3. That doesn't even begin to cover some of the DRM issues for a few games.
Personally Sony's brand is tarnished for a few other reasons besides this latest issue. It's a Japanese company so it's hard to say that there needs to be a culture change inside of the organization.
Zipper developed the game. Sony published it. I'm sure Zipper lost royalties, but Sony takes the sales hit in your example.
@Ray
I wasn't just speaking about money…though I'm sure some sort of bonus was hinted at for sales marks…but really SOCOM is a Zipper product/brand as much for Sony. I'm sure Sony has IP rights but at the same time it makes ZIpper look tarnished.
Over the last couple of weeks, I continually chuckle to myself every time a SOCOM 4 ad comes on TV, thinking to myself, "hey Sony, shouldn't we wait until AFTER PSN is up and working to try and sell me a game with such a large percentage of the content being multiplayer?"
SCE will be fine…they make fantastic prodcuts, the have amazing first party studios…this will be a HUGE lesson for sony going forward into the next generation (it better be)
@Video game themed drinks
http://www.thedrunkenmoogle.com/tagged/CLICK+FOR+…
an absolutely brilliant site with 12 pages of video game themed mixed drinks. I particularly want to try the Bowser (page 9) and I love how they have a three drink evolution called bulbasaur/ivysaur/venusaur (page 4).
Whoa look at the elephant over there,
How do you feel about Osama being taken out?
Personally I feel torn. One hand is like this guy had it coming and I feel for the victims and their family members and that may provide some sense of relief, but the other hand is like can you be happy because of someones death? I just put my hands up and shrug.
I am not in any way supporting or excusing that mans actions just stating my opinions.
An eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind.
-M. Gandhi
It would have meant a whole lot more if we'd gone after him the right way the first time instead of outsourcing it to Afgan Warlords, not have let him get away, and then not have invaded Iraq for no plausible reason. That's a whole lot of American lives that were wasted, and a whole lot of innocent Afgan and Iraqi lives that were equally wasted after we had the guy surrounded and let him get away.
That being said, I won't mourn his loss.
It only took a decade too. I started putting into perspective all the things that have happened to me since 9/11:
I've had 2 kids (both my big ass kids and all their friends weren't alive when 9/11 went down)
At that time, I was playing my top of the line PS2 on my 45" SDTV (still one of the heaviest things I ever owned) and I was amused that my TV had a picture in the picture.
There was another war going on back then, but this war was between NSYNC, Backstreet Boys, 98 Degrees, and O-Town.
Only 1 month after 9/11, America was in discomfort again when that dude asked "Did you ever have your shit pushed?" in the film Training Day. And, only 1 month after that… Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone was released.
2 months after 9/11… MGS2: Sons of Liberty was released.
To quote Jack's Joker "I'm glad you're dead!"
I'm not normally in favor of giving anyone an early exit out of our little hell hole, but this won't make me lose any sleep.
I would have preferred putting him in a stockade right where the Towers used to be.
Let the people of NY have at him.
I'll be the conspiracy nut on this one for the sake of argument and jump on board with the first legit sounding conspiracy theory.
First, no one has been able to give a real date when he was killed. Supposedly the attack was tweeted by an unknowing person, but that occurred on Sunday very early in the morning in the Middle East but the news all last night said he was killed last week and they have been confirming it was actually him this whole time.
Second, no one seems to be able to figure out whether it was a missile, bomb, or gunfight (I've heard all three at different times from the same person—this phenomenon has occurred several times by several people).
Third, his body was almost immediately buried at sea in a location where we do not know, therefore we cannot track the currents and find the body for visual proof—and even if we knew the location this happened at, he was still buried at sea which is a pretty big area for something to get lost in or eaten in.
Fourth, I've seen several places and people talking about the supposed pictures of his dead body (only his face though). The picture didn't seem legit to me the first time I saw it, but I couldn't determine what it was that I didn't like right away. Then I found a video read other sites showing multiple pictures that make it seem like the picture is a fake. http://www.euronews.net/2011/05/02/dead-bin-laden… . I would love to hear an expert dissect the photo and prove it is real or fake, all we can go off of though is amateur ability and the fact that the pictures do seem very coincidental, and fake to me.
I am forced to believe what I am told because I have no way of proving otherwise, but I would feel more comfortable accepting this information if there was more actual proof. All I've seen for proof so far is talk, and talk is cheap.
I get the burial at sea part. That is to prevent a grave site from being a shrine or monument.
I'm going with the story that we sent a team of Rambo like individuals in to get him and more than likely someone had a helmet cam that will be released or still shots at the very least.
You weren't supposed to see Saddam's execution either remember?
That's a possibility about the date and him being given a monument, but we have a date that Saddam was executed, and even if we didn't see it we did see him and pictures of him before his death. There was also a clearer portrayal of how he was found, not the unclear descriptions of him being shot, killed by a missile, and killed by a bomb.
Like i said before, there aren't many other options other than for me to believe what I am being told, but just like the Julian Assange rape charges coming up in a country that would allow the US to extradite him—it's all just extremely coincidental.
Also, the burial at sea part I do understand to a point—it is unacceptable for someone from his culture to be buried at sea unless he died on a boat. Also, he was not buried at see facing Mecca, which is a disgrace and something done to show dishonor to his body and his family. I'm not saying don't do that stuff to send a message or whatever, but it's just extremely convenient that we have no documented proof of his body and now it's at the bottom of the sea most likely eaten and picked away at by fish, sharks, and anything else under the water.
Interesting
The date part being shrouded goes towards Smatguy's response as well. That will prevent it from being a terrorist holiday.
When something like this happens, there's always a slow trickle of information. In this case, the administration didn't give the news to the media before they went on live, so you have to understand that in the 24 hour news cycle, far too much speculation makes it to air as fact when everyone is racing to get a story out there. All the facts will become known, in due time.
Their other network was broken into as well. Big black eye for them.
I think it's a pretty significant PR black eye now that it's been revealed just how lax Sony was with their customers' personal information. At least the credit card data was reportedly encrypted. But if I didn't already own a PS3, I'd certainly be a lot less likely to buy one now.
This new breach is for their other services like MMOs and such. That's pretty bad.
@bsu
Saddam was tried and sentenced to death by Iraquis. That would be in contrast to a Call of Duty style op lol
that's the thing though, we don't know it was a Call of Duty style op, he could have been killed as the result of a missile or bomb—but we haven't even been told that specifically. and as for the CoD style op, news reports that claim it was a ground fight say that he was completely surrounded and had no way of escape, so then why was it necessary to kill him and not bring him to trial but it was necessary for Saddam to be taken to a trial instead of killed on sight?
Like Nightshade said information will trickle in as time goes on, but I think there are some serious gaps in the story here that should be answered, and which will cause plenty of other people as well to feel like a lot of these happenings are very convenient.
Someone like that couldn't stand trial.
The difference with Saddam is that he was a former head of state. His own country did that.
Why
couldn't he stand trial?
Not sure why it posted that first part, my laptop must realize the roast of william shattner is on and started posting in his metric.
Where? How? No jury, judge or tribunal would be impartial. Also wouldn't a trial be a slap in the face here? You'd make the American tax payer foot the bill for not only the decade long trial but protection.
You are also assuming that a fundamentalist such as he was going to surrender.
Wait, just now we're worried about cost? We've been complacent with footing the bill for the past 10 years but footing the bill for his trial would be what pushes us over the edge??
As far as capturing him I think trained soldiers should be able to apprehend someone who is completely surrounded, not every criminal who is caught wants to be caught. Necessary force is used to contain and apprehend them.
And I don't think it had to be a US trial, Bin Laden was a known terrorist—why not have an international court? If I'm not mistaken those do exist, and I think an international terrorist fits the bill for someone eligible for an international trial (despite his jihad being directed towards the US, I think it would be justified).
I think you are being way too generous with assumptions here.
1) the amount of the cost isn't the issue, it's the idea of protecting him
2) not true about apprehension. Some ppl go down with the ship no matter what.
We aren't going to capture him and then hand him over. That's being overly naive. Besides, the guy wouldn't get a fair trial anywhere on this planet. He got what was coming his way.
So being shot without ever having even an impartial trial is more fair?? That doesn't make sense to me at all.
I can completely understand people's apprehension about paying for him to be protected, but when does the opinion of the people truly influence the outcome of events in this country? I say rarely. Look at the past protests in Madison, WI; Columbus, OH, and even Indianapolis, IN where the state senators actually fled the state due to protests in, I believe, all three instances but the third one I know for sure. Yes the people were revolting against something and it made headline news for a while, but nothing in those areas really changed in the long run. If the government said that Bin Laden would stand trial he would have stood trial, whether the people liked it or not. And when it came time for his execution, because we can both agree it would be an impartial trial, people would have been ecstatic. Also due to the fact that everything would have been impartial I don't think it would have taken long to convict him. How long did Saddam Hussein live for after he was captured? I don't know off the top of my head but I don't remember it being too terribly long. A case could be pushed through the courts if the government wanted it to happen.
You may be right about Bin Laden and being apprehended and captured though, it is unclear what exactly happened so I suppose it is very hard to speculate on how hard they tried to capture him alive. However, my personal opinion would be that they didn't try very hard.
Keep talking like this on the internet, and you will never travel on a plane again.
It also doesn't help that the word "Kenyan" is in your handle.
Personally, I believe in capitol punishment. In this case, the world saw the footage of the incident (over and over again for 2 weeks straight), and we all heard Bin Laden's confession video way back then.
No defense attorney would be able to get around that. Therefore, he got his come-uppance.
But still, like I said, I rather would have seen him bleed to death in a stockade in Southern Manhattan.
I believe in capitol punishment as well, after a trial that is. I also feel very strongly about this whole scenario. When 9/11 happened I was in a very rare position for someone my age—I was home schooled at the time and it was only my sister and me at home at the time (there had been a funeral in our church and everyone else was at the funeral). That morning I actually turned the tv on and my sister and I watched the second tower fall live. At the age of 13 that had a huge impact on my life, and I understood the implications of what was happening at the time. I want justice done as much as anyone else, but I would rather see it done in a proper way. It happened though, and it is done, I just would have preferred to see it end some way other than an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
It wasn't so much the "eye for an eye" thing as much as it was just how it goes down.
Archimedes (read up on him if you don't know) was arguably the smartest man who ever lived and he lived in ancient Greece. When Rome sacked Greece, the highest order was "kill everything… except for Archimedes". Well, Roman soldiers were going door to door asking all men if they were Archimedes. When they said anything besides "Yes" The soldier killed them. When one soldier finally found Archimedes, he was calculating an equation. So when the soldier asked "Are you Archimedes?" he replied "Can't you see I'm in the middle of something?" and ended up on the receiving end of a short sword.
In short, I doubt Bin Laden was going down quietly if it was indeed a gunfight. Therefore, the soldiers did the same thing any cop would do… they shot the bastard.
I also believe that the confession video was also like a guilty plea in courts. In that case, there wouldn't be a trial anyway. Just a plea bargain…. ANOTHER bad idea in this case.
He was gonna die by someone's hand if he got caught alive no matter what. Therefore, the process just got sped up.
@BSU
It's all about not creating a martyr. The long drawn out due process would have given him and his nutzoid fanatics what they wanted. A grandstand.
Personally I think they showed great restraint for not emptying the clips of their assault rifles into the corpse in order to bring it back.
Also the reason they buried him at see rather than let him be buried somewhere that can become a "shrine to a martyr."
International Court is a bad idea. In order to be impartial (which as Smartguy said, really is impossible anywhere), you would also be inviting his sympathizers to a trial with MANY big deal "infidels" in the same building… not a good idea.
According to US law, at least one federal employee must have been killed in the 9/11 attacks (which probably happened) in order for it to be in a federal court, otherwise, they could really only try him for mass murder… which would go to the state of NY (no way to be impartial there). Even then, you are announcing to all of his sympathizers around the world that the "infidels" will all be in one place on this date to try Bin Laden.
He was wanted for execution in Saudi Arabia as well. Those dudes would have pulled VAST resources so that they could get him as well. And THEN… you'd have to worry about other nations like Pakistan and Afghanistan raising "political prisoner" stink to the U.N.
We all knew since 2001 that the man needed put down like a dog that bit one too many people. It really was for the safety of the rest of us. The messed up thing is that even during the Clinton administration our government knew how he was, we just couldn't do anything about it until it affected us directly.
10 years later, street justice still trumps.
I don't think that street justice is always the right justice. Especially when we have politicians in our government complaining about such methods. I'm glad he is no longer a threat, but I have been amazed in the past 22 hours how so many people who I once thought were so liberal and democratic in political leanings have been so blood thirsty and in favor of his street justice murder (I hope that no one is offended by that statement as I am referencing a large number of people that I have talked, am friends with, or follow on twitter, etc.).
Yes he had a lot of things coming to him, but I find it highly ironic and slightly disgusting how many people have become so vulgar in their discussions about Osama Bin Laden. I love the line "yes they deserved to die, and I hope they burn in Hell" as much as the next guy, but I think we are sending the wrong message about our society when all we can focus on is the revenge and murdering aspect. Didn't the terrorists murder people in cold blood on 9/11? Aren't we the first world country here who is supposed to be civilized instead of barbaric??
Plenty of other countries would have wanted to get their hands on him, but that's exactly why an international court would have been the proper forum, everyone could take part. I can't even pretend to think it would have been impartial, in fact I agreed with Smartguy earlier that that would not be possible, but do you honestly think that saying that high level officials would all be gathered at the trial is a good defense as to why it should have been avoided? Isn't that what happens at the UN building, the White House, foreign and domestic embassy's?? Yes this would have been more high profile than those locations, but you don't have to make the location publicly known. The happenings of the trial and the results are what need to be publicly known if he would have been taken to trial.
In closing, street justice still triumphs—obviously it was effective, I just don't think that was the way to handle it in this instance. Violence begets violence, and all his violent death will do is incite violent retaliation. With a trial at least we would have been more honorable instead of playing by the rules of others.
First off, the only place in the world that a trial like that could be held is in Switzerland. That's common knowledge. Therefore, the actual location of the building would be easy to figure out once that much is known.
Secondly, questioning our politicians morals is something America does daily. In this instance though, we're talking about the second largest mass murder on American soil (never forget the Native Americans). Our country… and just about all nations were founded in bloodshed. Not much has changed. If your argument is that there's no excuse for killing and violence and our politicians tell us this… then you must be REALLY wondering why the U.S. even has a military (more specifically, the Marine Corps) and why most people would rather play CoD or Halo then play Pokemon. You cannot hold this stance and say you support our troops at the same time without completely contradicting yourself.
Lastly, when I mentioned the street justice thing, I never said it was right, I said it trumps… because it always has and always will. The phrase "violence doesn't solve anything" is completely bass ackwards. The real problem is that violence solves EVERYTHING. The bank is foreclosing on my house… burn down the bank. I can't play violent games on PSN, I should have found and shot all hackers a while ago. There is indeed a more civilized process as you noted… but there comes times where the system fails and rare occasions like this one where the system is completely powerless.
In summation, that's the point Smartguy and I seem to agree on. It's not about what "should've" been done as much as what "could've" been done. If there was a big deal federal trial, I would not be surprised to see a U.S. Senator (who would act as judges) stand up, and shoot Bin Laden in the forehead given a chance while saying "To hell with it, it's worth going to jail for… I love my children, and this is for them."
On one of my iPhone games, another player theorized that he was actually killed by one of the millions of people who haven't been able to play CoD in 2 weeks and this particular gamer finally lost it.
zing!
Honestly, I'm fairly certain that here's no point in creating a conspiracy theory just for the sake of creating one. Be patient. Let the facts filter out over the next few days.
Also, I'm quite comfortable with the fact that that bastard didn't get a fair trial. 9/11 was an attack on our sovereignty. This was a military action in a foreign land, not a drug bust on 5th street. He's publicly claimed credit for the deaths of thousands. I hope they give the Navy Seal that the Congressional Medal of Honor and the $27 Million bounty on bin Ladin's head.
In a transparent government, like this one supposedly is (although I already don't believe that due to the reaction to wikileaks), why aren't the facts here now? Especially if he has been dead for a week now and we are just finding out the news, they should have had plenty of time to get everything figured out and be able to clearly explain everything. The time that you are allotting for this to occur has already passed, we just didn't know it had passed because of the withholding of information.
Also, I do hope that it was an actual ground force that was there instead of a missile or bomb so that they can confirm with ballistics who gets the bounty, and hope that they actually give it to him/her.
He was killed yesterday according to every news report on every news channel. Where are you getting this "last week" stuff from?
Every news channel I watched last night (I flipped back and forth between FOX, CNN, and MSNBC) stated it occurred last week, and that the previous week was spent confirming in all ways possible that it was indeed Bin Laden.
You mean last night, when they were all speculating on air after the announcement and calling it "News?" Turn on the TV today, the information is starting to come out.
And I hope that all of the news does actually come out, but why do we have to wait a day for the actual news to come out? Is proper news too much to ask for? (rhetorical question, I already know it is too much to ask for.)
So, your stance is "Give him a lengthy trial that is sure to go on longer than the OJ trial that will inevitably end up in the same result as what actually happened… and let me know about it the second it does with 100% accurate information".
Yeah… that's too much to ask for. A bullet costs 30 cents. The cost of imprisoning him just for trial is astronomical. The value of knowing he's no longer a threat… priceless.
I'm a pretty liberal guy when it comes to a lot of things. I have no issue with how this went down. Everyone knows who this guy is and what he's done. You shoot him in the head and then you go have a celebratory beer. End of story.
Amen to that.
This why nobody asks “What REALLY happened to Anna Nicole Smith?”.
Me… I’m non-partisan because I believe that no one group can get it right. Hell, I’m not even sure if I’m right half the times I think I am. There are right wing ideals I agree with like no gun control and capitol punishment. And, there are left wing ideals I agree with like higher taxes for the filthy rich and right to abortion.
I just don’t fit in anywhere.
Yeah, I tend to be fine w/ capital punishment so long as we're sure that the person is guilty. I have no issue with using the military when we need to. I have plenty of issues with using to undo "Daddy's Mistake" under the guise of something it's not.
Well, the tremendous bias in the various news outlets is only half the problem. The other half is a tremendous lack of fact checking due to the race to be "first." But since we've all grown up to expect the information "now," we tend to take the speculative nonsense as news instead of being patient enough for the debriefings, DNA testing, and so on to take place.
@N8
yeah..the Jack Ruby treatment.
@BSU
It's a strange thing to decipher. (the sentiments of jubilation you mentioned). I don't know if it is wrong for someone to cheer about it. I don't know that it is right either. My girlfriend and I talked about this earlier. She was shocked to see her FB covered in what she considered very vulgar comments about the subject. I think people deserve to be relieved/elated/vindicated/etc about it.
Heard the funniest thing this morning. Osama Bin Laden was finally killed, it is amazing what you can do when you can't get on the Playstation Network.
Hmm…next console gen is starting out quite underwhelming:
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011/05/report…
My smartphone has more capacity. Actually 2 generations ago a SMARTPHONE had that capacity.
It will probably bring back the external memory units.
Or… it will bring back the "3 lives, and restart at the very beginning again" principle.
I was more or less looking at it from the perspective: Nintendo will once again have the worst online component of the upcoming generation.
Then it got me thinking…..we have come to the point where consoles and their pure horsepower will not be jaw dropping as before. I think I/we will all have similar reactions to MS and Sony's new machines when they leak.
Interesting… I need to ponder on this theory some more and maybe some research before I can discuss it properly.
I look forward to a discussion one day.
Wow, this is the longest page since the Scribblenauts available words page a few weeks ago…
I really don't think this type of thing should be something for fans to blame Sony for. The problem wasn't Sony, it was the hackers that ruined it. Those responsible, if found, will definitely be sued for damages. Unfortunately, most people are taking the stance that "If their security was better, it wouldn't have happened!" The thing is, this is the hacker community we're talking about. Chances are, if they can hack such a big corporation so easily, whatever defenses they might have had would still be useless.
Well, the argument is that Sony's stance against hacking and homebrew caused the attack.