Comment by myself248 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by myself248 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Because I bought the hardware, end of story. I shouldn't have to justify what I do with it after that. Not to Nintendo, not to Sony, not to you, and not to a court of law.

I didn't borrow it, I bought it. I pay for the power that lights it up, I pay for the network it connects to, I get to say what it does and when and how.

Yes it was advertised as a gaming console, yes it came with some games installed and it's very good at that, but it's also a whole-ass computer with the potential to do whole-ass computer things. I'm offended by having a computer sitting right there that can't be used to do some task that it might otherwise be capable of.

We'd never stand for arbitrary restrictions on other everyday items. Imagine if the can of soda I'm drinking could only be used as a drink. Oh you spilled some chemicals on yourself and you want to use this to rinse off quickly on your way to the shower? Sorry, drink output can only connected to mouth input, too bad about your arm. Like, what?

Objects are versatile and using that versatility is the essence of humanity. It's why we have opposable thumbs. It's why we're the dominant species on the planet. Backsliding from that in the name of copyright or some shit is inane, counterproductive, and offensive to the very core of my being.

> Because I bought the hardware, end of story. I shouldn't have to justify what I do with it after that. Not to Nintendo, not to Sony, not to you, and not to a court of law.

I wonder if you misunderstood the GP's question.

I don't think they were asking, "Why, as the manufacturer, should we consider your desire reasonable?".

I think they were asking, "As a fellow computer user, I'd like to better understand something interesting, and it sounds like you might be up to something interesting."

This is also how I interpreted it, perhaps because I am also intrigued and want to know (my Steam Deck just shipped earlier today).

Personally, I use SSH to poke around. 99% of the time, I look at the directory structure, maybe learn something and then shrug with a “that was cool” and never look at it again. But there’s always that 1% where I find something truly interesting…

I would argue that you just shouldn't buy a PlayStation.

For Sony's customers, part of the appeal of a console is the locked down nature. Cheating in multiplayer games is far less prevalent in newer consoles because of this, and even when the consoles do get cracked wide open, the barrier to entry is usually high enough to make cheating a pretty rare occurrence. This is all accomplished without making the user install a kernel-mode driver on the same computer they likely use to file their taxes.

I'll also point out that unlike what the GP insinuated, Sony won't actually sue you for running an SSH server on your PS5.

I don't think he said he planned on exploiting the network play.

> Sony won't actually sue you for running an SSH server on your PS5.

But they might ban your console or try to brick it in some way. (i've heard of network bans but not bricking.. but I wouldn't put it passed them)

So the problem is, once you detect a user is running arbitrary unsigned code on their system, how do you differentiate between them using that capability for cheating or running the world's most convoluted SSH server? Once the system is compromised, you don't really know what the user is doing, and as such any network traffic cannot really be trusted.

Prevent them from logging into your network. (You own your network)

You own the device. Whatever you do with it is up to you. (Despite their whining about how "you only own a license to posses the device")

This is essentially what they do. A console detected running modified software gets banned from PSN.

If you were a game dev who had toiled for years on a game you hoped to sell, you wouldn't be talking this way

I would and I am.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com