Sony will also be at handing out refunds at "E3", a large video-gaming event, to all registered PS3 owners. A new article will be posted very soon on how Sony will be handling this matter.
Can't wait to see this.:lol :lol
Sony will also be at handing out refunds at "E3", a large video-gaming event, to all registered PS3 owners. A new article will be posted very soon on how Sony will be handling this matter.
But he's linkboy.Jintor said:Good hook title, A++, would be induced to click a link to a thread I have no interest in again
StuBurns said:Yeah, but MS launched knowing they'd have to clear that up, and didn't take as much of a hit on initially subsidizing hardware, and they have more money to begin with.
m0ngo said:
Gattsu25 said:http://www.google.com/products?hl=e...esult_group&ct=title&resnum=3&ved=0CDcQrQQwAg
It's a shame but I think this is indicative with a greater problem within America. Many parents are failing to take an interest in their children's education and the results are telling. DWC, don't take this the wrong way as it is never too late to learn proper reading. Sure, your parents are failures but maybe they had more important things to do than spend time making sure that their child received an education?
If they'd admit it they would be, but they never will.travisbickle said:If that was true Microsoft would be in a lot of trouble.
DevilWillcry said:This is how I read your post.
Mama Robotnik 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?
gerg 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"?
gerg 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).
gerg said: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"?
gerg said:Should region-locking be made illegal?
gerg said: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?
gerg said:Should any company be allowed to release any content for any game system?
It's "indicative of" you fucking moran.Gattsu25 said:It's a shame but I think this is indicative with a greater problem within America.
Mama Robotnik 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.
I'd go with reducing function/ability after-the-fact, with no replacement function/consumer benefit.
Not quite following your on this one gerg, maybe its me. Could you expand on it a bit please?
1. Sony has every right to protect the security of the PS3.Mama Robotnik said:We call this (brace yourself) "anti-consumer". Does that make sense?
MikeE21286 said:They're gonna refund me 50% of the price for my $600 launch unit? :lol I'll believe it when I see it.
Where's my 4D?Minamu said:If this is true, please remove more features! :lol
Not even. Protecting the PS3 means protecting the interest of all game developers and publishers.Safe Bet said:1. Sony has every right to protect the security of the PS3.
It's Microsoft man, they know their business.travisbickle said:If that was true Microsoft would be in a lot of trouble.
1. Not to the detriment of the consumer.Safe Bet said:1. Sony has every right to protect the security of the PS3.
2. If you never used it and never planned to, nothing was taken from you.
3. I'm sure Sony can send the people who can reasonably prove they were using Linux on the PS3 new Viaos.
It's actually not advertised on the product box.Neuromancer said:2. An option was taken from me. An option that was advertised by Sony.
Or $659/2 CA.-PXG- said::lol
That would be amazing. I couldn't complain about getting $300 from Sony either
Darkman M said:No way, but i would gladly take the free money.
Mama Robotnik said:What Sony have done is one of the worst anti-consumer moves in the history of the industry, and they should be made to pay back every penny. No business should be allowed to lobotomise the functionality of your property.
What Sony have done is one of the worst anti-consumer moves in the history of the industry, and they should be made to pay back every penny. No business should be allowed to lobotomise the functionality of your property.
Maybe so, that doesn't change the fact that it was still advertised as a feature though.JWong said:It's actually not advertised on the product box.
Neuromancer said:Maybe so, that doesn't change the fact that it was still advertised as a feature though.
:lolhey_it's_that_dog said: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.