• 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.

PS3 Firmware Update 3.21 of preventing piracy by removing Linux.

panda21

Member
Mar 25, 2008
8,467
0
0
London
theres a difference between trying to justify it and whether it actually is illegal or not.

i'm pretty sure sony can completely stop providing the PSN if they wanted to, so I don't see how this is illegal.

i can see why people might not like it but i think they are entitled to if they decide thats best for them.
 

patsu

Member
Jun 19, 2005
10,336
10
1,455
missile said:
But this has nothing to do whether the OtherOS feature is useful or not. I'm not sitting in front of my PS3Linux waiting until open source brings heaven down to
earth. There are infinetly many things one can do -- independent of the 'speed up'.
It does because you mentioned PS3 can compete with low cost PC. As time moves on, that low cost PC will be more powerful with a richer software base. The current PS3 Linux is not fantastic as an end user machine. As a Cell development platform, it's a champ though.
 

patsu

Member
Jun 19, 2005
10,336
10
1,455
BocoDragon said:
So his alternate personality, Tyler Durden, is downloading this firmware without his knowledge as an ode to destruction??
I don't know... I suggest looking under the bed.
 
Dec 6, 2008
5,399
0
0
jepjepjep said:
As a user, why should it make a difference to you (if not out of principle)? The PS1, PS2, DS have all been hacked and continued to have plenty of developer support.
Online cheating, security breaches, malicious code... theres lots of downsides to hacking a network and system. Sony will just ban those systems like MS has done if they have that setup ready to go, but even still, its not just a case of the happy XBMC and homebrew app community campers that flood in when the thing is hacked all the way open (and who knows when that will be, Geohot clearly doesnt :lol ).

Lol @ PS3 Slim user's confusion as to how his system updated itself to remove OtherOS :lol
 

mister1337

Neo Member
Sep 10, 2009
2
0
0
Louisiana
I wonder how long it will be before Geek Squad at bestbuy figures out they can't make money off of Other OS. Seriously, charging more than $100 to install Linux on PS3? Are they going to pass out refunds now?:lol
 

lamotia

Member
Apr 4, 2005
206
0
0
First of all I would like to say that I don't use the OtherOS feature and I probably won't be able to do so after this update.

I understand the people that used it and I really think that the fact that they will lose a feature sucks. But let's look at things from Sony’s point of view.

They made a platform that by itself is losing money (at least at the beginning) and they hope to get those money back by selling software. They also include a free of charge ability to play games online (which their main competitor Microsoft charges for) and a fully working Linux OS (that no one from their competitors provides for their customers). They spent and continue to spend money on those features. Now I don't know how much but by the look of it it should be a lot. And worst of all they continue to lose money because of those features.

The US military alone bought 1700 PS3 to make servers out of them because IBM’s Blade servers that are equipped with Cell cost tons of money. God knows how many others did that. Sony lost money from each console since they are not selling a single piece of software for those companies and individuals.

The PSN is also losing tons of money for bandwidth but still 4 years after the PS3's launch the platform is free.

Now, along came geohot with his hack. He manages to get rid of the hypervisor and promises that there will be custom code running on the PS3 at some point. There is a huge risk that piracy spreads on the system. What should Sony do? Leave it like this? Increase the price of the console? Increase the price the price of the games? Make the PSN subscription paid by default? Or remove the feature that started this problem in the first place?

Q: How much cash are they generating form that feature? A: Zero. They actually made an investment so that they can have this OS up and running on the PS3. In addition to that I guess that there are some fees in order to get updates for it.

Q: What’s the number of users that are using it? A: Low.

Q: Are the US Army and the companies that are using the PS3 as a server going to have problems if they do not have the ability to play games and log in to PSN? A: No.

Q: Are they going to have a potential hole that leads to piracy on the system? A: No.

Case closed. No other company gave us the possibility to install another OS on their platform. Sony gave this feature for free but with some basic rules attached. Now geohot broke them. How did you think this was going to end?
 

racerx

Banned
Sep 27, 2009
238
0
0
Mudkips said:
MoronX brought up a shitty example and I provided a better one.
This is not about a sporadically used feature being removed, it's about an advertised feature being removed.

It's wrong, retarded, and illegal.

You trotted out your bullshit and asked for someone to correct it. I did.
So what do you have to hide behind now? Nothing? Fuck off.
LOL. Hide behind what? Man, I certainly hope you'll get some help. I certainly wouldn't want to be around you when something more serious happens.

At this point, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Some people think it should be a requirement to make things always backward compatible, others, like me don't agree.
That's that.
 

Mudkips

Banned
Mar 13, 2009
10,186
0
0
racerx said:
LOL. Hide behind what? Man, I certainly hope you'll get some help. I certainly wouldn't want to be around you when something more serious happens.

At this point, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Some people think it should be a requirement to make things always backward compatible, others, like me don't agree.
That's that.
Disagree? It's not about agreeing or not, you're plain wrong.

There are requirements. We have laws.
 

artist

Banned
May 7, 2006
16,629
0
0
lamotia said:
First of all I would like to say that I don't use the OtherOS feature and I probably won't be able to do so after this update.

I understand the people that used it and I really think that the fact that they will lose a feature sucks. But let's look at things from Sony’s point of view.

They made a platform that by itself is losing money (at least at the beginning) and they hope to get those money back by selling software. They also include a free of charge ability to play games online (which their main competitor Microsoft charges for) and a fully working Linux OS (that no one from their competitors provides for their customers). They spent and continue to spend money on those features. Now I don't know how much but by the look of it it should be a lot. And worst of all they continue to lose money because of those features.

The US military alone bought 1700 PS3 to make servers out of them because IBM’s Blade servers that are equipped with Cell cost tons of money. God knows how many others did that. Sony lost money from each console since they are not selling a single piece of software for those companies and individuals.

The PSN is also losing tons of money for bandwidth but still 4 years after the PS3's launch the platform is free.

Now, along came geohot with his hack. He manages to get rid of the hypervisor and promises that there will be custom code running on the PS3 at some point. There is a huge risk that piracy spreads on the system. What should Sony do? Leave it like this? Increase the price of the console? Increase the price the price of the games? Make the PSN subscription paid by default? Or remove the feature that started this problem in the first place?

Q: How much cash are they generating form that feature? A: Zero. They actually made an investment so that they can have this OS up and running on the PS3. In addition to that I guess that there are some fees in order to get updates for it.

Q: What’s the number of users that are using it? A: Low.

Q: Are the US Army and the companies that are using the PS3 as a server going to have problems if they do not have the ability to play games and log in to PSN? A: No.

Q: Are they going to have a potential hole that leads to piracy on the system? A: No.

Case closed. No other company gave us the possibility to install another OS on their platform. Sony gave this feature for free but with some basic rules attached. Now geohot broke them. How did you think this was going to end?
:lol
 

Megadragon15

Member
Jul 12, 2009
6,123
0
760
lamotia said:
First of all I would like to say that I don't use the OtherOS feature and I probably won't be able to do so after this update.

I understand the people that used it and I really think that the fact that they will lose a feature sucks. But let's look at things from Sony’s point of view.

They made a platform that by itself is losing money (at least at the beginning) and they hope to get those money back by selling software. They also include a free of charge ability to play games online (which their main competitor Microsoft charges for) and a fully working Linux OS (that no one from their competitors provides for their customers). They spent and continue to spend money on those features. Now I don't know how much but by the look of it it should be a lot. And worst of all they continue to lose money because of those features.

The US military alone bought 1700 PS3 to make servers out of them because IBM’s Blade servers that are equipped with Cell cost tons of money. God knows how many others did that. Sony lost money from each console since they are not selling a single piece of software for those companies and individuals.

The PSN is also losing tons of money for bandwidth but still 4 years after the PS3's launch the platform is free.

Now, along came geohot with his hack. He manages to get rid of the hypervisor and promises that there will be custom code running on the PS3 at some point. There is a huge risk that piracy spreads on the system. What should Sony do? Leave it like this? Increase the price of the console? Increase the price the price of the games? Make the PSN subscription paid by default? Or remove the feature that started this problem in the first place?

Q: How much cash are they generating form that feature? A: Zero. They actually made an investment so that they can have this OS up and running on the PS3. In addition to that I guess that there are some fees in order to get updates for it.

Q: What’s the number of users that are using it? A: Low.

Q: Are the US Army and the companies that are using the PS3 as a server going to have problems if they do not have the ability to play games and log in to PSN? A: No.

Q: Are they going to have a potential hole that leads to piracy on the system? A: No.

Case closed. No other company gave us the possibility to install another OS on their platform. Sony gave this feature for free but with some basic rules attached. Now geohot broke them. How did you think this was going to end?
Wow! This is...wow.
 

Kalren

Member
Jun 7, 2004
402
0
1,235
Kittonwy said:
If it violates your "principles" then don't update, or sell your PS3, or sue, or all three.
If I was afforded that same consumer rights as some others in other countries I would but I'm not.

Kittonwy said:
It's not a matter of "Sony says so", the reality is the impact of this update on the userbase is minimal because very few people actually use this feature, as a user I don't want the system hacked, period.
And removing Backwards compatibility would really affect a small percentage of users. Would it be reasonable to allow Sony to remove it?
 

SolsticeZero

Banned
Dec 31, 2008
11,337
0
0
Texas
Sorry, but I gotta jump on the "couldn't care less" bandwagon. Linux functionality was something a very small percentage of PS3 owners used. It was a pretty gimped Linux option anyways, since it was so limited in its memory/cell access. Also, for all those server farms that use Linux, they really don't go on the PSN anyways, so they don't need to update. For consumers, well, if you want linux, buy a little 100 dollar tower and a KVM switch.

hateradio said:
But why not fix the flaw, instead of removing the feature.
Because this flaw is hardware based. It's like on the PSP's. The "Pandora's Battery" glitch is hardware based, and the only fix was to revamp the hardware completely.

EDIT: I'm not against homebrew. I use homebrew on my PSP all the time. But if this can help Sony prevent possible piracy in the future, then I can't blame them. Look at the 360. An old friend of mine has a 360 and never paid for a single game. He's smart in the fact that he doesn't go on Live with it, so he never has any intention of buying a game, either. How much money is MS losing due to this? How much money is Sony preventing from being lost by nipping this in the bud beforehand?
 

lamotia

Member
Apr 4, 2005
206
0
0
Solstice said:
Sorry, but I gotta jump on the "couldn't care less" bandwagon. Linux functionality was something a very small percentage of PS3 owners used. It was a pretty gimped Linux option anyways, since it was so limited in its memory/cell access. Also, for all those server farms that use Linux, they really don't go on the PSN anyways, so they don't need to update. For consumers, well, if you want linux, buy a little 100 dollar tower and a KVM switch.



Because this flaw is hardware based. It's like on the PSP's. The "Pandora's Battery" glitch is hardware based, and the only fix was to revamp the hardware completely.
My thoughts exactly.
 

racerx

Banned
Sep 27, 2009
238
0
0
Mudkips said:
Disagree? It's not about agreeing or not, you're plain wrong.

There are requirements. We have laws.
There is a law that say the new version of a software can't remove old features?

Windows vista can't remove old features in windows xp? Windows xp can't get rid of native dos functionality that was in windows 98?

You can say those are completely different software. And I suppose you may have a case that those are more discrete than firmware 3.21 and 3.15. So, what does sony have to do to make it legal? give names to firmware?

3.21 - alpha omega ps3
3.15 - old ps3.
 

RedNumberFive

Banned
Oct 6, 2006
9,556
0
0
Chicagoland
racerx said:
There is a law that say the new version of a software can't remove old features?

Windows vista can't remove old features in windows xp? Windows xp can't get rid of native dos functionality that was in windows 98?

You can say those are completely different software. And I suppose you may have a case that those are more discrete than firmware 3.21 and 3.15. So, what does sony have to do to make it legal? give names to firmware?

3.21 - alpha omega ps3
3.15 - old ps3.
I just had to check in to see if you made any other borderline retarded analogies.

I wasn't disappointed.

We get it dude, you have no problem with faceless corporations shitting on consumers and intentionally degrading their products.
 

Reallink

Member
Jan 7, 2008
5,892
308
1,065
panda21 said:
theres a difference between trying to justify it and whether it actually is illegal or not.

i'm pretty sure sony can completely stop providing the PSN if they wanted to, so I don't see how this is illegal.

i can see why people might not like it but i think they are entitled to if they decide thats best for them.
The point of contention is the removal of (new) Game and BR support (e.g. games and BR's that will require 3.21+ to operate, and have it loaded on the disc). The obvious argument is then is that people purchased their PS3 Phats under the reasonable assumption (and it's likely spelled out explicitly in ads or documentation as well) that it would continue to play NEW Game and BR content for the life of the hardware in addition to maintaining its suite of advertised features (e.g. OtherOS). This will likely be the main angle of the inevitable suits. Similar arguments will be made about PSN as well considering the values some people have tied up in DLC, and honestly, this is a prime case to set precedents in consumer protection and regulation concerning online services.
 

racerx

Banned
Sep 27, 2009
238
0
0
RedNumberFive said:
I just had to check in to see if you made any other borderline retarded analogies.

I wasn't disappointed.

We get it dude, you have no problem with faceless corporations shitting on consumers and intentionally degrading their products.
I'm still waiting for my tag. "hates consumers - loves corporations"
 

RedNumberFive

Banned
Oct 6, 2006
9,556
0
0
Chicagoland
racerx said:
I'm still waiting for my tag. "hates consumers - loves corporations"
You've earned it. The corporate apologists on GAF never cease to amaze me!
:lol :lol :lol

edit: I apologize if it got a little heated there buddy. It's something I personally feel strongly about, and I'm sorry if I spoke somewhat disrespectfully.

Also, I'll be more than happy to take the inverse of that tag!
 

androvsky

Member
Sep 19, 2007
7,940
1
895
racerx said:
There is a law that say the new version of a software can't remove old features?

Windows vista can't remove old features in windows xp? Windows xp can't get rid of native dos functionality that was in windows 98?

You can say those are completely different software. And I suppose you may have a case that those are more discrete than firmware 3.21 and 3.15. So, what does sony have to do to make it legal? give names to firmware?

3.21 - alpha omega ps3
3.15 - old ps3.
You seem to be confusing discrete products a lot. Many of your examples involve feature removal between separate versions, like going from Windows 98 to Windows XP. The analogy to that would be when Sony removed OtherOS from the Slim. It's still a PS3, but only people purchasing a new PS3 would be affected.

This is a hardware product I already purchased losing a feature that I use, and for no better reason than someone at Sony actually believing geohot's BS.

Instead of trying to come up with analogies even further removed from the reality of what we're discussing, you might try talking about what Sony is actually doing.
 

tass0

Banned
Jan 9, 2008
2,745
0
0
Cyprus
lamotia said:
First of all I would like to say that I don't use the OtherOS feature and I probably won't be able to do so after this update.

I understand the people that used it and I really think that the fact that they will lose a feature sucks. But let's look at things from Sony’s point of view.

They made a platform that by itself is losing money (at least at the beginning) and they hope to get those money back by selling software. They also include a free of charge ability to play games online (which their main competitor Microsoft charges for) and a fully working Linux OS (that no one from their competitors provides for their customers). They spent and continue to spend money on those features. Now I don't know how much but by the look of it it should be a lot. And worst of all they continue to lose money because of those features.

The US military alone bought 1700 PS3 to make servers out of them because IBM’s Blade servers that are equipped with Cell cost tons of money. God knows how many others did that. Sony lost money from each console since they are not selling a single piece of software for those companies and individuals.

The PSN is also losing tons of money for bandwidth but still 4 years after the PS3's launch the platform is free.

Now, along came geohot with his hack. He manages to get rid of the hypervisor and promises that there will be custom code running on the PS3 at some point. There is a huge risk that piracy spreads on the system. What should Sony do? Leave it like this? Increase the price of the console? Increase the price the price of the games? Make the PSN subscription paid by default? Or remove the feature that started this problem in the first place?

Q: How much cash are they generating form that feature? A: Zero. They actually made an investment so that they can have this OS up and running on the PS3. In addition to that I guess that there are some fees in order to get updates for it.

Q: What’s the number of users that are using it? A: Low.

Q: Are the US Army and the companies that are using the PS3 as a server going to have problems if they do not have the ability to play games and log in to PSN? A: No.

Q: Are they going to have a potential hole that leads to piracy on the system? A: No.

Case closed. No other company gave us the possibility to install another OS on their platform. Sony gave this feature for free but with some basic rules attached. Now geohot broke them. How did you think this was going to end?
I don't know why these guys are laughing at your post, look what happened to Sony in the past..

PSP was fucked up beyond repair, I'd guess around 50% of PSPs sold have a CFW installed (I don't know anyone who has a PSP without CFW). That's 30 million, you can bet 99.9% or so were in it for piracy.

Now there's half of potential buyers gone, great.

Nobody wants to develop for PSP anymore, because nobody will buy the game, no matter how great it is, I don't remember the last time a PSP game was in the charts and thus a dying (dead?) system.

Now you tell me, you still think Sony is doing wrong to remove a feature which could most likely lead to all this shit again?
 

SolsticeZero

Banned
Dec 31, 2008
11,337
0
0
Texas
You know, there's nothing to say that someone at Sony may find a software fix for this in the future and they could add it back in. I mean, it's not likely, but it certainly is possible.
 

Megadragon15

Member
Jul 12, 2009
6,123
0
760
tass0 said:
I don't know why these guys are laughing at your post, look what happened to Sony in the past..

PSP was fucked up beyond repair, I'd guess around 50% of PSPs sold have a CFW installed (I don't know anyone who has a PSP without CFW). That's 30 million, you can bet 99.9% or so were in it for piracy.

Now there's half of potential buyers gone, great.

Nobody wants to develop for PSP anymore, because nobody will buy the game, no matter how great it is, I don't remember the last time a PSP game was in the charts and thus a dying (dead?) system.

Now you tell me, you still think Sony is doing wrong to remove a feature which could most likely lead to all this shit again?
Yeah. Let's all forget that the PS1 and PS2, both of which were hacked really early in their lives, never happened and let's all focus on the PSP.
 

Oozinator

Banned
Jun 22, 2009
943
0
0
Currently signed into the PSN and browsing the Store using firmware v3.15 with Logan5's proxy tool. Win-win situation for me :D
 

railGUN

Banned
Nov 19, 2005
5,192
0
0
Solstice said:
You know, there's nothing to say that someone at Sony may find a software fix for this in the future and they could add it back in. I mean, it's not likely, but it certainly is possible.
Fix for what exactly? You wanna talk about a small user base doing something, I bet the amount of people cruising the hypervisor or whatever the fuck it's called is pretty low. And unless I missed something, CFW isn't running on the PS3 and it's not suffering from piracy at the moment? So this is basically preemptive no?

If Sony wants to compensate me for removing a feature that I paid for, I'll listen.

I don't think Sony has responded at all... ?
 

AndyD

aka andydumi
Jan 24, 2007
19,100
0
0
Nashville, USA
Solstice said:
You know, there's nothing to say that someone at Sony may find a software fix for this in the future and they could add it back in. I mean, it's not likely, but it certainly is possible.
Nah. Once they move on its over. All the current slims dont even have the option anymore, so the percentage of potential affected users will be smaller and smaller. They are mush more likely to focus on stuff affecting/benefiting everyone.
 
Aug 6, 2008
1,472
0
0
Boston
Kalren said:
So it's reasonable to say goodbye to the Other OS because Sony says so?

What if 2 months from now they find that Backwards Compatibility can be used to hack into the system?
What if, what if, what if....

really??

think logically - if Sony makes ANOTHER patch that removes ANOTHER feature set, people will start to really get pissed. They will loose support and money, and i don't think they're ignorant enough to keep doing this.

Not to mention, I really doubt they're going to remove BC as it is one the most requested features. Linux was not.

Stop trying to compare apples to oranges!!
 
patsu said:
It does because you mentioned PS3 can compete with low cost PC. ...
patsu, no offense, but please read my posts more carefully. Well, I wrote; "... First
an foremost I think that having the RSX enabled from day 1 would have made the
PS3 a good competitor for low-end PCs over time. ...
". That is to say, open source
would had been much more flourish on PS3 if the RSX were accessible day 1, leading to
said good competitor. And I do believe that your requested 'speed up' could had been
attained as well in this case.

The OtherOS feature does not depend on open source. Open source makes it a lot easier
to utilize the PS3 under the influence of the OtherOS. Hence, judging the usefulness of
whether there is any open source or even huge open source activity under the OtherOS is,
at best, very subjective.
 

SolsticeZero

Banned
Dec 31, 2008
11,337
0
0
Texas
This is copied and pasted from another forum, but I think it's relevant here:

For those saying that Sony keeps taking away features, such as Backwards Compatibly, and SACD, you need to realize how much sony has added to the PS3.

Features added to the PS3 after launch:

-Trophies
-DivX
-Dynamic Themes (actually, themes in general)
-Home
-Flash Support
-In game XMB
-Upgraded PS Store (with video content)
-Premium Avatars
-Photo gallery
-VidZone
-Faster XMB
-Facebook integration
-Cross game invite support
-In game soundtrack support
-Life with Playstation
- Many, many more

Features taken away from the PS3 after launch.

-Linux
-SACD
-Backwards compatibility
-Card reader and USB slots
 

panda21

Member
Mar 25, 2008
8,467
0
0
London
Reallink said:
The obvious argument is then is that people purchased their PS3 Phats under the reasonable assumption (and it's likely spelled out explicitly in ads or documentation as well) that it would continue to play NEW Game and BR content for the life of the hardware in addition to maintaining its suite of advertised features (e.g. OtherOS).
I don't think thats actually in the law though surely? If it stopped being able to play the games sold to run on it then fine, but all they have to do is say on the box of the new ones 'requires firmware 3.21 or greater' and i don't see how its illegal.

Aren't there 360 games that require an HDD? does that mean 360 arcade owners can sue microsoft?

If sony decided to fuck everyone over and switch to PS3.5 games that run only on the slim from now on, i think that would be legal. there is no requirement for them to keep releasing games that run on the older models.
 

RavenFox

Banned
Dec 26, 2005
7,813
0
0
www.cafemaroon.com
Megadragon15 said:
Yeah. Let's all forget that the PS1 and PS2, both of which were hacked really early in their lives, never happened and let's all focus on the PSP.
How old are you? Were you downloading 8 gig files in 1997 and 2002? How many bluray burners did you own back then?
Common sense would tell you different times and different architecture right? The yester years have no relevance to this specific issue.
 

Kalren

Member
Jun 7, 2004
402
0
1,235
anonymousAversa said:
What if, what if, what if....

really??

think logically - if Sony makes ANOTHER patch that removes ANOTHER feature set, people will start to really get pissed. They will loose support and money, and i don't think they're ignorant enough to keep doing this.

Not to mention, I really doubt they're going to remove BC as it is one the most requested features. Linux was not.

Stop trying to compare apples to oranges!!
I believe you are not thinking logically. BC is only requested by a small minority. It's just happens that those who want BC are vocal.

I also think you give to much credence to how much Sony cares if they remove a feature like BC. Losing BC would not lose Sony any money and little support. An easy decision for Sony.

It's more like Oranges to Oranges.
 

Lince

Banned
Dec 7, 2005
4,813
0
0
33
Granada, Andalusia / SPAIN
well there's been a ton of features added gratis to my PS3 since I bough it 3 years ago... if now they believe they need to remove one of them due to security concerns then it's alright, they should just keep working on this issue and maybe re-enable the Other OS feature sometime in the coming future, who knows.
 

jepjepjep

Member
Jan 7, 2008
367
0
0
Santa Barbara, CA
lamotia made a very well thought out argument, so I thought I'd post a response.

lamotia said:
First of all I would like to say that I don't use the OtherOS feature and I probably won't be able to do so after this update.

I understand the people that used it and I really think that the fact that they will lose a feature sucks.
Totally agree with you there.

lamotia said:
But let's look at things from Sony’s point of view.

They made a platform that by itself is losing money (at least at the beginning) and they hope to get those money back by selling software.
Not quite true. They have historically lost money on hardware, but make money years later when production is cheaper. For example, Sony still sells PS2 consoles and they make money on each one sold. It is a long-term business model, 10 years+ according to Sony.

lamotia said:
They also include a free of charge ability to play games online (which their main competitor Microsoft charges for) and a fully working Linux OS (that no one from their competitors provides for their customers). They spent and continue to spend money on those features. Now I don't know how much but by the look of it it should be a lot. And worst of all they continue to lose money because of those features.
First, consider the free online gaming. This was again a business decision. It has taken Sony years to get the PSN comparable in features to Xbox Live. Now we are hearing rumors of Sony wanting to charge for "premium online services". Microsoft spent a lot of money up front on developing Xbox LIVE too.

The ability to run linux was a built-in advertised feature that Sony used to justify the high launch prices.


lamotia said:
The US military alone bought 1700 PS3 to make servers out of them because IBM’s Blade servers that are equipped with Cell cost tons of money. God knows how many others did that. Sony lost money from each console since they are not selling a single piece of software for those companies and individuals.
Once again, it was a business decision to sell the console at the initial cost. How many people bought launch Wiis for Wii Sports and never bought any other games.

lamotia said:
The PSN is also losing tons of money for bandwidth but still 4 years after the PS3's launch the platform is free.
Kudos to Sony for keeping it free so far, but how many years did it lag behind Xbox Live in features and functionality. The free online is also a strong selling point for PS3 consoles and games. Many consumers buy PS3 versions of multiplatform games because of the free online, which leads to profit for Sony.

lamotia said:
Now, along came geohot with his hack. He manages to get rid of the hypervisor and promises that there will be custom code running on the PS3 at some point. There is a huge risk that piracy spreads on the system. What should Sony do? Leave it like this? Increase the price of the console? Increase the price the price of the games? Make the PSN subscription paid by default? Or remove the feature that started this problem in the first place?
Yes, douchebag comes along and puts a damper on the party. However Sony chose the option that is best for it's business which consequently breaks an advertised feature. There is a question to the legality of this, and it is up to the consumers to stand up for themselves and their rights.

lamotia said:
Q: How much cash are they generating form that feature? A: Zero. They actually made an investment so that they can have this OS up and running on the PS3. In addition to that I guess that there are some fees in order to get updates for it.
They generated money for every system sold where this feature factored into the purchase decision. It factored in for me.

lamotia said:
Q: What’s the number of users that are using it? A: Low.
Low, but not zero.

lamotia said:
Q: Are the US Army and the companies that are using the PS3 as a server going to have problems if they do not have the ability to play games and log in to PSN? A: No.
They are only a portion of the userbase. This still affects legitimate consumers that use the feature.

lamotia said:
Q: Are they going to have a potential hole that leads to piracy on the system? A: No.
Have there been any systems that have not been hacked in due time? Most likely there are still vulnerabilities.

lamotia said:
Case closed. No other company gave us the possibility to install another OS on their platform. Sony gave this feature for free but with some basic rules attached. Now geohot broke them. How did you think this was going to end?
I have to disagree with you there. Sony advertised this feature and is now intentionally disabling it. I think this case is very much still open until it is actually challenged in court.
 

lupinko

Member
Jul 26, 2007
19,530
2
0
Band on the Run
www.twitter.com
Megadragon15 said:
Yeah. Let's all forget that the PS1 and PS2, both of which were hacked really early in their lives, never happened and let's all focus on the PSP.
Well those were physical mods, and required copied hardmedia (later on yes PS2 had the use of a harddrive loader but to be effective you still needed hardware in a network adapter for the fat PS2s).

The PSP's hackjob requires no solder wizardry and no real effort. And bricked PSPs from botched attempts can be fixed via a pandora battery.
 

jepjepjep

Member
Jan 7, 2008
367
0
0
Santa Barbara, CA
lupinko said:
Well those were physical mods, and required copied hardmedia (later on yes PS2 had the use of a harddrive loader but to be effective you still needed hardware in a network adapter for the fat PS2s).

The PSP's hackjob requires no solder wizardry and no real effort. And bricked PSPs from botched attempts can be fixed via a pandora battery.
PS1 and Saturn could swap a CD-R during boot requiring no hardware mods. Or you could buy an expansion for the port on the PS1 which plugged right in without requiring any soldering. I would say it is easier and less risky than modding a PSP. No risk for making a brick.
 

Kittonwy

Banned
Feb 21, 2006
21,538
0
0
Tortondo, Canada
Kalren said:
If I was afforded that same consumer rights as some others in other countries I would but I'm not.
Well there you go.


And removing Backwards compatibility would really affect a small percentage of users. Would it be reasonable to allow Sony to remove it?
They already removed backward compatibility in the newer models, but they have no reason to remove it from existing models, because BC hasn't been found to be a vulnerability.
 

Kalren

Member
Jun 7, 2004
402
0
1,235
Kittonwy said:
They already removed backward compatibility in the newer models, but they have no reason to remove it from existing models, because BC hasn't been found to be a vulnerability.
The question wasn't if a vulnerability was found or not. It was how reasonable it is to remove it?
 

Ashes

Member
Dec 11, 2008
23,380
0
965
Greater London
Seems like some people are arguing that big corporations have to be a little ugly to root out piracy...
And other people are arguing that big corporations don't have the right to take away advertised features...

Take out Sony, and you have an age old argument...
 

AndyD

aka andydumi
Jan 24, 2007
19,100
0
0
Nashville, USA
Kalren said:
The question wasn't if a vulnerability was found or not. It was how reasonable it is to remove it?
But the answer hinges on two things - if a vulnerability is found, and also BC has already been removed in the hardware.
 

SolsticeZero

Banned
Dec 31, 2008
11,337
0
0
Texas
Kalren said:
The question wasn't if a vulnerability was found or not. It was how reasonable it is to remove it?
But the question is about vulnerability, because the only reasonable reason to remove it would be if it was a security risk.