-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Case against Sony for OtherOS removal dismissed
- Thread starter USD
- Start date
They gave you that choice.
MrBelmontvedere
Member
I would care a bit if I wanted to install Linux on my PS3. good thing I don't.
and in my scenario they give you the choice between having the other features of the system or games
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
The case of having to update to a newer OS in itself -- without the fact that they removed a feature -- is denying you the ability to play a new game anyway, and that has always been the case with the newer consoles.
with the psp, if you didnt update to v5.00, you couldnt play whatever new psp game it was that you bought if you had v3 for psp. so are you losing the ability to play that new psp game? no, not if you update. but if you don't update, you can't play it.
in fact, over the PSP's life, they probably removed some feature that no one used or cared about, too.
chaosblade
Unconfirmed Member
The idea that a company can remove features after the warranty period or force a user to choose between two existing features without repercussions. This could easily be abused to "encourage" users to buy new products by gimping old ones.
Take a case like this one, but without the piracy potential. Users taking advantage of hardware in ways that the company behind it didn't intend, which could possibly even include things like adding features that would normally be found in new products. The company could push out updates and gimp your hardware/force you to choose between features in order to try make an incentive for people to buy the newer products.
Call me crazy, but with the way corporations are out to get every dime, nickle and penny you're worth (especially phone companies and ISPs) I wouldn't be surprised at all to see them stoop to this level.
so don't update and keep both features with everything you've paid for working perfectly.
not if the other features were internet dependent
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
oh, you mean something that has already been around for a long time?
no game that is internet-dependent is guaranteed to last. havent you heard of games stopping multiplayer servers after a year or two? not to mention people moving onto another game essentially does the same thing?
also, they didnt take away your ability to play games. you can still play games that you have!
Professor Beef
Banned
There was no ruling made, so where is the precedent?
chaosblade
Unconfirmed Member
Yes, but I think it's worse in this case since they are actually screwing with stuff that you've paid for.
I don't think planned obsolescence on the level of "chips that make your car break down" or "CPUs that get slower after a couple years" actually happens despite what some say.
The reason the case was thrown out.
test_account
XP-39C²
Not if it could be used to open for piracy, that you needed OtherOS as a "gateway" to hack your own PS3. Wasnt like 20-30 million PS3s sold before the PS3 Slim?
As you said, it was a mistake that were made. Those who does these mistakes are people just like me and you. So someone maybe see it this way. But that is just my guess why someone defend this.
I'm pretty sure that it isnt something as broad as that. When it was ruled that hacking iPhone was legal, it doesnt ment that it is legal to hack every electronic device out there.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
i'd actually say that planned obsolescence is exactly what this whole issue entails if it is to see more examples. it is "no worse" than other cases.
except in this case you actually have the choice of updating or not. you actually had a choice in the matter. if you didnt make the educated one, whose fault is that but your own?
nothing in the case of other OS was internet dependent, as any online only game makes it quite clear that it can be terminated at any time for any reason. furthermore, the games work fine you're choosing not to use your psn account which is a requirement of these games.
Professor Beef
Banned
It was thrown out because they couldn't make a case, though. I don't see how all of a sudden this means that Sony gets to do whatever they want because the plaintiffs didn't have their shit together.
chaosblade
Unconfirmed Member
Maybe I'm just old-fashioned but I'd expect to be able to play a PS3 game on my PS3 without having to sacrifice other features to do it.
Arguing "you can play the games that don't require the newer firmware" will just go in circles because it will just depend on your view on the "game playing" feature.
In this case I don't really care one way or the other though, I just don't want the logic this judge used to be used to dismiss other similar cases.
Keyword here is "could". Could it be used for piracy? In theory anything could, but that didn't stop the feature from being included in the PS3 in the first place. So was it worth removing the feature from the systems of early adopters of the PS3? Not at all, in fact it was pretty damaging to Sony in all fronts.
As an aside, what actually opened the doors to piracy were incredibly simple methods like cloning a service USB key made and distributed by Sony. Maybe they should have kept a closer eye on their own employees and service centers instead of assuming their 20-30 million early adopters would turn to piracy just like that.
Shame it came to this. Some of the blame goes to the hackers in my book. Before this mess, ps3 was/is region free, could install linux which woulf let you legally install emulators and such but thats not enough. Regardless of the keys being unprotected there, hackers should of known their messing would fuck over present and future ps3 owners. Great job there fellas.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
i also believe that this is the main case here, and the reason people should actually be mad. the plaintiffs didn't make their case. if they had, maybe it would have been "favorable" for the "pro-consumer" advocates that apparently want to see Sony burn.
things change, and i dont think anyone can really expect to play games like we have in the past. things have changed... and its not like I can play LEGO Island on my Windows 7 PC since it fucks it up all the time. I'm not about to go and try to find a Windows 95 machine to play it, but thems the bricks.
the developers of LEGO Island should have been more forward thinking and not program their game like crap.
Alexios
Cores, shaders and BIOS oh my!
Your analogies suck. Where did Lego Island state it would support Windows 7 or alternatively when was it claimed Windows 7 supports Lego Island?
This is more akin to Windows 7 Service Pack #3 saying that if you install it you will lose access to a given feature and if you don't install it you will lose access to another feature, all of which were parts of Windows 7 previously, so either way, while there's a choice, you lose something you paid for even though SP3 wasn't among that.
Nobody wants to see Sony burn just for the sake of that happening as you imply, people just don't want to get fucked over and have courts support that.
Professor Beef
Banned
At least we already had the car analogy in this thread.
Advertised enough so that it was a reason I bought a PS3 to begin with... I wanted to try programming an algorithm on a Cell-type processor and it was the only affordable option I had.
I don't really have gripes with PSN being unavailable to PS3 with Other OS installed. That being said, I find it much harder to swallow that some recent games are unplayable.
And also the fact that the choice can't be reverted once done.
Sportbilly
Member
Is this the real issue here, your personal investment in a company? Personally, I couldn't care less about which mega-corps is fucking me over, as a precedent for me, the principle of getting what you paid for is far more important.
Yeah, just like all those PSX and PS2 developers whose games you can't play on the PS3.
test_account
XP-39C²
True, but proof of concept was shown that you could used OtherOS could be used for exploiting the PS3, so it was legitmate reasons for concern, it wasnt just some theory that something "could happen". This probably scared Sony, so they wanted to take precautions i guess.
Was it ever proven that the USB key came from a Sony employee? Just wondering. But if it was, it is impossible to keep a close eye on every employee like that. Unfortunately there excist unloyal employees like this. It took 4 years before someone did it at least. If it was a new employee or something, who knows.
I dont think that they assumed that 20-30 million users would do piracy, but it could be a pretty widespread thing at least.
All PS1 games does work on every PS3
PS1 emulation is done 100% through software on PS3, so it doesnt cost anything extra to include it.
MidgarBlowedUp
Member
You don't keep the features you paid for working perfectly. You still loose system functionality whether you update or not, and that's the whole point to this mess. Sony only got "lucky" because they intentionally didn't sell the option as an advertised feature for the PS3. The problem is they pushed and sold the idea on to consumers and even released the PS3 with the OtherOS option, but they left themselves just enough leeway to remove the feature in the future by adding some clauses in the agreement when you purchased the system.
Think of it this way, if you purchased Windows 7 because you knew it had an unadvertised feature like Bluetooth functionality, then 2 years down the road after you already have all your Bluetooth peripherals set up, they remove the feature rendering all your bt peripherals useless unless you simply stop updating your system, would you not feel ripped off? Most people would, and that's why most companies still allow you to use the feature even if it isn't fully supported anymore. Sony didn't do this, they simply forced the consumer to remove the feature all together instead of just abandoning it but leaving the option to use it.
Sye d'Burns
Member
Good. Now people can focus on healing.
Sad, but true.
Ah well, the lesson is learned. Thanks to the OtherOS debacle, I discovered Steam and thus embarked on my lost decade of PC gaming.
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Never again Sony.
ReturnOfTheRAT
Member
I lawsuit like this did not need to be taking up time in the legal system.
Yes, you do.
No. Buying an OS and [if you felt like arguing it] buying the right to the updates to the OS does not grant you the right to dictate the contents of those updates and they aren't being forced on you anyway.
Yep. I'm aware the warriors will be here applauding and celebrating, but this is no a good result. At all.
test_account
XP-39C²
Personally i wouldnt worry to much about it. Sony will never include Linux support again like they did on PS2 (seperate Linux Kit) and PS3. At least i cant imagine that they will include Linux support again after seeing what happened in this PS3 case. Someone will probably try to abuse the feature and it will be more of a risk than something that can be a selling point.
Alexios
Cores, shaders and BIOS oh my!
Seems to me you don't even know what the thread is about and what people are arguing. Who wanted to dictate what the future updates will include? People just want to keep playing PS3 games, keep connecting to PSN, and keep having Other OS, all of which they could do up to a given point, and can't past another.
There are in fact choices but ALL the choices result in the loss of some of the above which, again, were paid for, regardless if you care about some more than others.
Seems to me you aren't paying very close attention.
you want to keep playing your games? you can.
you want to keep connecting to psn? you never had that right.
you want to keep otherOS? you can.
You want to meet the requirements of a game you want to buy? well, you'll have to update now.
Consider the consequences of what you ask for outside of this one instance where you feel entitled. You're asking for sony to either lose control of the network they maintain, remove the requirement for games to need updates or do nothing [no more updates for fear of offending some moron]. all of those solutions are utterly unacceptable.
AngelSoldier
Banned
Yay for Sony.
I would like to see proof of Sony boasting this "Turn your PS3 into a home computer with linux" nonsense. I've been using Linux for a long time, never had an urge to put it on any of my consoles ...
I would like to see proof of Sony boasting this "Turn your PS3 into a home computer with linux" nonsense. I've been using Linux for a long time, never had an urge to put it on any of my consoles ...
still a choice ain'it?
DR2K
Banned
Sophie's choice.
Does it not follow that they should also not have a right to expect to be able to play games beyond Sony's warranty period? That seems a logical corollary to that finding.
test_account
XP-39C²
If you check the very early PS3 interviews etc., you will probably see it mentioned. It was mentioned at least a few times in the very early PS3 days. They were trying to sell the PS3 as an "all-in-one" device.
The OtherOS case is a pretty difficult case in my opinion. I never used it myself, but i understand that it sucks for those who actually used it. I think that it is pity that Sony removed it, but i also find it kinda pity that someone abused the feature and showed that it could be used for exploiting, otherwise OtherOS would probably still be in the PS3 Phat models since then Sony wouldnt have anything to be scared of regarding this. Then there is also the whole legal question, if the Terms of Service is legal or not regarding this removal. So all in all, it is a case with alot of in contradistinction (if that is the right word) in my opnion.
Just out of curiosity, what did people here actually use OtherOS for? Wasnt Linux running so slow on PS3 that it was practically useless for most things?
Dismissed as expected.
It's nonsense. They have an obligation to continue to allow you to play the games that you could play at the time when you bought the system. That's as far as the legal obligation extends.
If they release a new model of PS3 with more ram and still call it a PS3, can they sell PS3 games that state on the box that they only work with new PS3s? You're arguing that they cannot. What if they called the exact same device the PS4 and the new games all PS4 games? Would a simple change of name suddenly change everything?
It's nonsense. They have an obligation to continue to allow you to play the games that you could play at the time when you bought the system. That's as far as the legal obligation extends.
Neuromancer
Member
Can't wait to see what features an emboldened Sony removes from their next console.
Phoenician_Viking
Banned
It sucks for some not having an OS.'
Something they won´t include in the first place. Like OS. I don´t think Sony will include anything that does damage them in any way.
Something they won´t include in the first place. Like OS. I don´t think Sony will include anything that does damage them in any way.
Sportbilly
Member
I don't think there are many OtherOS supporters/ users on here, and even fewer using the words you've ascribed to them.
However, there are plenty of people who'd like what little consumer rights they have left not to be further eroded, and are quite perturbed at others seemingly defending the erosion of said rights.
Similar threads
- Poll