HolytheGoalie

My frustration lies more in the way that Sony PR is handling this. Using lines like, "Down for scheduled maintenance" (main playstation.com site), or "We realize that a few users may be affected...", and, "some services may be affected", (@askplaystation twitter account) only make it look like they're not taking it seriously (I know they are, but they don't outwardly APPEAR to be). Stop lying to everyone, admit that everything is (or was, at least) totally borked, and then let us know what's going on.

People (myself included) are really easy to please. Just give us a little bit of information about what you're trying to do to fix it, apologize and ask for forgiveness. Once things are working, people will forget everything that happened, and in the interim - while everything's down - people are much more calm and willing to let them work it out.

Seriously, that should be PR 101. The fact that they don't seem to understand that is just farther cause for concern regarding the intelligence of anyone in a leadership position at that company...

Holy shit, that's my Congressman! Nice to see that at least someone in my great state isn't a complete raving jackal.

I understand all the comments professing outrage, as I'm as put off by this practice as anyone. However (and I haven't dug down through all of the comments, so if I repeat someone, my apologies), I haven't seen anyone touch on the legality of this practice.

a) If I purchase a product, I do so with the expectation that I am receiving the entirety of the product, whether it's cables with a television, drill bits with a power tool, or mounting hardware with a piece of computer hardware. Even if I don't know there's supposed to be something extra in the box, when I give the retailer money for something, there is the expectation that I will get everything I'm entitled to. If I don't get everything I'm paying for, something has been stolen from me, which is exactly what Gamestop is doing here; they're stealing from me, which is patently illegal.

b) Wouldn't this be considered anti-competitive? If the publisher wants to include a coupon for a competing service, and the retailer with whom it directly competes removes said coupon for the sole purpose of preventing additional competition in the market, I would think that falls squarely under the purview of anti-competitive practice laws. I mean, Microsoft got nailed for including their own internet browser in Windows, and they were ADDING a service. Illegally (see point 'a') removing intended content in order to quash a directly competing service seems way, way worse (although on a smaller scale).

@Onno10: No, the ones that don't have an internet connection CAN'T pirate games, therefore they would be forced to pay for an actual copy, except they wouldn't be able to play it because they DON'T HAVE INTERNET.

Hmm, should be interesting to see how this plays out.

@jonnyboy: a) Don't play it b) Don't play it with Kinect. Simple solution to a dumb problem.