-
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.
I don't believe it for a second, but
- Thread starter linkboy
- Start date
Noisepurge
Member
if its true and sony loses 50% of all profit made on PS3´s i believe they might just call it quits and then we would lose the whole console 
kyo_daikun
Member
Interesting, bet it would take 10 years for them to sort people out a refund tho, they had to expect a backlash from removing features tho (even tho hardly anyone used it)
travisbickle
Member
StuBurns said:
If that was true Microsoft would be in a lot of trouble.
Patrick Bateman
Member
m0ngo said:
Burns: You know, Smithers, I think I'll donate a million dollars to the local orphanage...when pigs fly!
[They laugh. The pig sails across the sky before them.]
Smithers: Will you be donating that million dollars now, Sir?
Burns: Nooo, I'd still prefer not.
MidnightScott
Banned
So can I get it for my slim that I bought on August 26th 2009? :lol
Oil spill full of salt here.
Oil spill full of salt here.
Guy Legend
Member
Just give everyone some PSN dollars. Isn't that hard.
Gattsu25 said:
I think he brings up a valid point.
Is it a consumer right for companies to be unable to change the features of their purchase? Moreover, does it matter if consumers happily sign away that right by buying certain products? I don't think that Sony's decision was made in the interests of consumers, no, but I think terms such as "anti-consumer" should be reserved only for decisions that run against consumer rights (or are immoral or anti-competitive).
Mama Robotnik's statement is even more vague when he says things like "No business should be allowed to lobotomise the functionality of your property." What counts as "lobotomising the functionality of your property"? Should region-locking be made illegal? And, if we start to limit a company's ability to design their product (and how that product is used both by consumers and other companies) is it illegal for Nintendo mandate that developers receive a license from them to create games for their system? Should any company be allowed to release any content for any game system?
Mama Robotnik
Member
DevilWillcry said:
I'll use small words.
Sony are doing a bad (not good) thing, and make things of yours (not theres) go break.
We call this (brace yourself) "anti-consumer". Does that make sense?
I NEED SCISSORS
Banned
Hirai is weeping into his pillow. The one year he was finally going to be profitable, GONE.
Mama Robotnik said:
See my above post.
Is it a consumer right for companies to be unable to alter the functionality of your purchases? Is so, why?
And, if it isn't, why, then, is this decision "anti-consumer"? If all decisions that are "bad" for the consumer count as "anti-consumer" manoeuvres, does releasing a game at under 60fps count as doing something "anti-consumer"?
CaseyTappy
Member
Free money on E3 Sony booth , sounds totally believable
MidnightScott
Banned
Can you close this now? N4G picked up on Stumpakow's post.
Revolutionary
Member
No way I'm gettin $300 back almost 4 years after I bought this thing. :lol
But, if it's true (lol), I'm buying a Slim with that money.
But, if it's true (lol), I'm buying a Slim with that money.
Here is the case
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-candce/case_no-3:2010cv01811/case_id-226894/
The case hasn't even started
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-candce/case_no-3:2010cv01811/case_id-226894/
The case hasn't even started
Mama Robotnik
Member
gerg said:
One of the reasons this situation really enrages me, is that the funcionality in question is one of the console's core advertised features. It was put across as one of many selling points.
Under your definition, I'd argue that for a company to reduce the functionality of your property (fully owned by you, and not them) is both against consumer rights, and absolutely immoral.
gerg said:
I'd go with reducing function/ability after-the-fact, with no replacement function/consumer benefit.
gerg said:
If the box says "Plays games from every region!", then they went back on that, then I'd say this would be anti-consumer. I don't like region locking in any form, but the company never claimed all games would be region-free. That scenario is not as comparably malicious as what Sony are doing though, because while whereas you have an option to purchase region-locked games, you do not have an option to a company forcibly removing paid-for functions in your own property.
gerg said:
If Nintendo advertised/described their product as "Plays all unlicensed games" and removed said function from the hardware with an irreversible patch, then I'd argue this would be equally anticonsumer, if not worse.
gerg said:
Not quite following your on this one gerg, maybe its me. Could you expand on it a bit please?
Mama Robotnik said:
On the one hand, I can absolutely sympathise - it sucks to have a feature you enjoyed using removed from your purchase.
On the other hand, I can't help but wonder if there's little argument to be made once you have, through your actual purchase of this machine, agreed to the chance of this happening. (Although, I guess the argument is then that Sony shouldn't be allowed to put those clauses into the purchases of its products.)
Does it matter if I don't care for that function?
It all comes down to what a company should be allowed to do with their product. In one of the many threads we've had about Nintendo's introduction of region-locking with the DSi, people have claimed that it is anti-competitive because it limits what other companies can do with the machine. Sorry, it was a bit off-tangent.
Edit: Thinking about it, it is an anti-consumer move. Sony should not force consumers to choose between advertised features. I think I jumped the gun on the matter... : )
Edit edit: Gah. My internal debate is the obviously un-beneficial nature of this move and the fact that you, as a consumer, agreed to its potentiality through your purchase. Should Sony not have a right to ask that you purchase a PS3 under those conditions?
Edit3: So, yeah. I agree. Sony should not have the right to remove features retroactively which were advertised as being included in the PS3. Similarly, Nintendo's removal of the ability to use MP3 files when using the Photo Channel was against consumer-rights. The only instance I can think of when I might not want to say this is when Sony is earnestly trying to fix a security problem (or something else significant), but in those instances Sony should not hold other advertised features hostage as an incentive to try and encourage you to download that firmware.
Not even. Protecting the PS3 means protecting the interest of all game developers and publishers.Safe Bet said:
If piracy breaks through to the PS3, which has been the strongest against piracy thus far, then a lot of companies, not just Sony, will lose money, which also mean jobs are lost.
Neuromancer
Member
1. Not to the detriment of the consumer.Safe Bet said:
2. An option was taken from me. An option that was advertised by Sony.
3. ???
DCharlie
And even i am moderately surprised
hoho
28m (?) units pre that date globally , everyone is getting "50%" back (50% of what? so lets just say, $100)
so even at that Sony are going to budget to lose $2,800,000,000 ?
Not going to happen.
I'm sure there is also probably some clause in the agreement EUA document that says "we reserve the rights to remove features that impact security without notice" too.
wave goodbye to Sony if this were the case. Given that the PS3 has already blown a multi billion $ hole in them, wiping out a huge chunk of "playstation family" profit, having to then pay back the historic retail price of -every- PS3 to date give or take a few months?
also - do they then collect from every retailer what they got in profits? Wow, that's a logistics nightmare - probably add a few $100m just to admin that too! And i'm sure that's a fair few other businesses getting that final push over the edge towards bankruptcy too! woohoo!
Wouldn't they just patch the Other OS option back in and then give some sort of token download vouchers to the new playstation owners who lack the features rather than throw their business into a multi million $ payout fire pit of doom?
... why am i even discussing this? it's obviously a load of old balls!
28m (?) units pre that date globally , everyone is getting "50%" back (50% of what? so lets just say, $100)
so even at that Sony are going to budget to lose $2,800,000,000 ?
Not going to happen.
I'm sure there is also probably some clause in the agreement EUA document that says "we reserve the rights to remove features that impact security without notice" too.
wave goodbye to Sony if this were the case. Given that the PS3 has already blown a multi billion $ hole in them, wiping out a huge chunk of "playstation family" profit, having to then pay back the historic retail price of -every- PS3 to date give or take a few months?
also - do they then collect from every retailer what they got in profits? Wow, that's a logistics nightmare - probably add a few $100m just to admin that too! And i'm sure that's a fair few other businesses getting that final push over the edge towards bankruptcy too! woohoo!
Wouldn't they just patch the Other OS option back in and then give some sort of token download vouchers to the new playstation owners who lack the features rather than throw their business into a multi million $ payout fire pit of doom?
... why am i even discussing this? it's obviously a load of old balls!
Neuromancer
Member
Maybe so, that doesn't change the fact that it was still advertised as a feature though.JWong said:
H_Prestige
Banned
I don't care about turning my ps3 into some crappy half assed computer, but I'd take the money.
hey_it's_that_dog
benevolent sexism
There is no way any arbiter in the world would make the judgment that Other OS functionality was/is worth 50% of the console price. I suppose if they added all the emotional damages (sure seem to be plenty around here) it might get up there though.
If it's not on the box, where was it advertised? People talking about it on the internet doesn't count (and that's where I can most easily remember hearing about it). I'm not trying to attack you or the side you're on, I'm just interested in the facts on this point.
Neuromancer said:
If it's not on the box, where was it advertised? People talking about it on the internet doesn't count (and that's where I can most easily remember hearing about it). I'm not trying to attack you or the side you're on, I'm just interested in the facts on this point.
Similar threads
- Locked