Support NeoGAF

[squatingyeti]

Like I said, wasn't OtherOS removed because of people like GoeHot? Because some people found a way to hack the system through it? If so, then they're to be blamed for the removal of OtherOS, not Sony.

Sony chose to remove it hoping they might stop something. Again though, there are reasons beyond OtherOS being removed. The very fact that OtherOS doesn't allow you to actually use the full capabilities of the system is reason.

You said:


What exactly would entitle you to play other than PS3 games on PS3? (After all, it's was known from the beginning, that RSX would be disabled when using OtherOS) Are you entitled to play any games, and use any apps, you want on 360 and Wii as well? Why don't you just buy a PC, and be done with it?

If someone codes something that could be played on the PS3, then I should be able to use it, with or without Sony having to approve. I also said apps and games. Yes, I should be entitled to running and playing any legally obtained apps or games coded to work on those devices. Tell me how people wanting to use apps or games Apple had not approved any different than me wanting to use apps or games Sony has not approved?

 

[atomsk]

Sony "could" be damaged from this, but the reality is, THEY ARE. KZ3 torrents are up and running right now and, and guess what, people are playing them, but wouldn't be able to without failOverflow or GeoHot.

The 3.41 Jailbreak was BEFORE the GeoHot hack. Those guys who were trying to sell $100+ usb dongles... remember them? (Which was then subsequently reverse engineered and released as PSGroove, also NOT GeoHot)

Pretty sure if people were still using dongles, they would be modifying the eboots to run KZ3. They were modifying eboots when GT5 came out to force that to run IIRC

 

[Melchiah]

If someone codes something that could be played on the PS3, then I should be able to use it, with or without Sony having to approve.

It's a game console. It's designed to play software approved by the manufacturer.

 

[polyh3dron]

So, for you guys claiming that the "razor and blades" business model is not something Sony should be allowed to protect, would you support a much higher introductory price for Sony's next console? GAF asploded from the 599 US DOLLARS thing as it was.

 

[mclem]

Why should everyone who bought a PS3 have to deal with BS for the sake of a handful of users who care more about turning a game console into something else than actually using it to play games?

They should not. They should be protected - by the game makers and by Sony. The former by writing solid code, the latter by banning those who get online with cheats enabled.

At the moment, the hackers are acting as a very useful scapegoat, because by encouraging fans to pile the blame on *them*, it carefully avoids anyone asking any awkward questions about how the corporations behind this failed *you*, as a user.

 

[polyh3dron]

It's a game console. It's designed to play software approved by the manufacturer.

 

[Mama Robotnik]

So, for you guys claiming that the "razor and blades" business model is not something Sony should be allowed to protect, would you support a much higher introductory price for Sony's next console? GAF asploded from the 599 US DOLLARS thing as it was.

Sony's model is stupid. It assumes that games will sell and piracy will never exist, and expects profit several years into the console cycle. It makes too many assumptions and is unnessecarily risky. If I were a shareholder, I'd be pointing to Nintendo's consistently proven model of making a profit from day one. If this generation has proved anything, its that power and expensive tech are no guarantees of success.

I'm not expecting them to be daft enough to follow such a model again in the future. There will be no need for a (business suicide) $899 console to cover costs of a flawed business model.

 

[plagiarize]

So, for you guys claiming that the "razor and blades" business model is not something Sony should be allowed to protect, would you support a much higher introductory price for Sony's next console? GAF asploded from the 599 US DOLLARS thing as it was.

i doubt Sony will ever risk it again actually. i bet they don't sell the NGP for a loss (though they might sell it at cost). i support a lower MANUFACTURING cost for their next console and i bet that's what we get.

 

[mclem]

So, for you guys claiming that the "razor and blades" business model is not something Sony should be allowed to protect, would you support a much higher introductory price for Sony's next console? GAF asploded from the 599 US DOLLARS thing as it was.

I wonder how much the PS3 would have cost at launch if it hadn't been subsidised. Same for the 360.

No, anyway. Sony put *too much* technology into the PS3. Technology that meant that they had to charge it at a high price even when subsidised, which means there's already a house of cards in play right from the off. And while it's capable of doing more than the 360, there's not a great deal of stuff out there which actually *does*.

It didn't need to be so pricey to compete.

 

[squatingyeti]

It's a game console. It's designed to play software approved by the manufacturer.

It's a printer, it's designed to use cartridges approved by the manufacturer. It's a router, it's designed to use the firmware provided by the maker. It's a phone, it's designed to use software approved by the manufacturer.

So, you are against jailbreaking phones too, right and you think that should be against the law?

You think we should only be able to purchase ink cartridges from the manufacturer?

 

[Melchiah]

It's a printer, it's designed to use cartridges approved by the manufacturer. It's a router, it's designed to use the firmware provided by the maker. It's a phone, it's designed to use software approved by the manufacturer.

So, you are against jailbreaking phones too, right and you think that should be against the law?

You think we should only be able to purchase ink cartridges from the manufacturer?

Why the constant wayward comparisons?

A game console by its definition has always been meant to play software approved by the manufacturer. Again, why don't you just stick with a PC if that's such a big problem for you?

This is getting ridiculous. Why don't you shake your fist at Microsoft and Nintendo for denying you to play anything you want on their systems as well?

 

[Ken Masters]

serious question, how prevalent is pirating for ps3 games? I personally don't know anyone who does it but I know a shit load of people with pirated 360s

 

[Tellaerin]

What problems are being caused to everyone else? Please don't start with the cheating because a) It was going on BEFORE CFW and b) Sony is perfectly capable of detecting cheaters, disabling remote accesses to PSN, AND banning systems (they've chosen to pretty much do nothing).

You can't handwave away the fact that cracking a platform makes it a lot easier for any would-be cheaters to do so. The homebrew advocates like to say it's 'too soon' to expect any really impressive homebrew applications, and that they'll likely appear later. The same logic holds true for cheating, no? I expect that we'll see more (and 'better') cheats online as more people come to grips with the inner workings of the hardware and games. You'll forgive me if I'm not looking forward to it.

The other potential issue is developer support. There have been many debates here over how much piracy affects the bottom line for publishers. Regardless of the actual numbers, as long as there's the perception that a platform is rife for piracy, it becomes less desirable for professional development. And I'm sorry, but homebrew apps aren't going to take up the slack there.

The bolded portion is exactly how Apple could greatly be affected by jailbreaking. Imaging app makers withdrawing support due to piracy. People no longer see the iPhone as a good device because there's no apps for it, which makes it a shitty smartphone. Apple must pull the plug on the iPhone.

Were you for or against jailbreaking phones?

I've never given the matter much thought before. I'm not a big fan of cellphones in general, so it's not something that affects me one way or the other. For me, the key question would be whether or not the phone's value as a phone is compromised by the existence of jailbreak exploits. Would you say that's the case?

If someone codes something that could be played on the PS3, then I should be able to use it, with or without Sony having to approve. I also said apps and games. Yes, I should be entitled to running and playing any legally obtained apps or games coded to work on those devices. Tell me how people wanting to use apps or games Apple had not approved any different than me wanting to use apps or games Sony has not approved?

A closed system is, by its nature, closed.

Closed systems have advantages and disadvantages over open systems. Among the advantages are quality control and standardization of features by the platform holder - there's a submission and approval process in place for software, ensuring that all titles released meet certain minimum standards. Closed platforms are also generally perceived as more secure than open ones, something that makes them more appealing to developers - fewer sales lost to piracy, less time and effort having to police online games and enact anti-cheating measures, etc.

Believe it or not, there are a lot of people out there who want a 'walled garden' for the advantages it provides. That's what they bought a console for - QA, exclusive software, etc. And I find it hard to empathize with the people who say that a hardware manufacturer doesn't have the right to declare a given platform closed. If there were no easily-available open platforms, I might feel differently. But if someone wants to develop for an open platform - no license fees, no devkits, no restrictions on content, no minimum standards to adhere to or approval process for submissions - PC's are dirt cheap. Yet the homebrewers would rather tear down any wall they see because they've decided every platform must be open, regardless of how that affects anyone outside their particular clique.

As far as I'm concerned, the needs and wishes of people who bought a product for its intended purpose should always take precedence over hobbyists who want to mod it to do something else.

 

[Pureauthor]

Why the constant wayward comparisons?

A game console by its definition has always been meant to play software approved by the manufacturer. Again, why don't you just stick with a PC if that's such a big problem for you?

This is getting ridiculous. Why don't you shake your fist at Microsoft and Nintendo for denying you to play anything you want on their systems as well?

Because this thread is mostly about how Sony is being a big douchebag? I mean, if the company name in the title changed we might have a different set of people defending it but otherwise I'm pretty sure the thread would proceed pretty much as it has.

 

[DonMigs85]

Why the constant wayward comparisons?

A game console by its definition has always been meant to play software approved by the manufacturer. Again, why don't you just stick with a PC if that's such a big problem for you?

This is getting ridiculous. Why don't you shake your fist at Microsoft and Nintendo for denying you to play anything you want on their systems as well?

Maybe the "ONLY FOR..." logos on SNES game boxes traumatized him as a child, making him desire an open world where software will run on any platform he chooses.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

The EA cartridge clearly states that it's Licensed by Sega Enterprises.

 

[Soroc]

People need to stop with the weak argument that its a "game console"

I'm all for open debate on this subject but even Sony's marketing does not classify their device as just a "game console". If that were the case they wouldn't have put a web browser in it and other "media" streaming abilities.

This generation no longer has game consoles. They have interactive media devices targeted at taking over the "home media center" pc boxes.

You can argue that people primarily buy the devices to play games. That is the hook to get the box in your living room. If they just wanted you to play games then they wouldn't include web browsers, netflix streaming, espn, and other such features.

By making something more than just a game machine they have opened the door to this stuff good or bad its here to stay just like apple with the iphone. If they just created a phone nobody would care. But smartphones are just that, portable computers that people want to mod like their pc to do what they want it to do. Its now the same with Sony's box, somewhat with Nintendo and Microsoft.

 

[DonMigs85]

A closed system is, by its nature, closed.

Closed systems have advantages and disadvantages over open systems. Among the advantages are quality control and standardization of features by the platform holder - there's a submission and approval process in place for software, ensuring that all titles released meet certain minimum standards. Closed platforms are also generally perceived as more secure than open ones, something that makes them more appealing to developers - fewer sales lost to piracy, less time and effort having to police online games and enact anti-cheating measures, etc.

Believe it or not, there are a lot of people out there who want a 'walled garden' for the advantages it provides. That's what they bought a console for - QA, exclusive software, etc. And I find it hard to empathize with the people who say that a hardware manufacturer doesn't have the right to declare a given platform closed. If there were no easily-available open platforms, I might feel differently. But if someone wants to develop for an open platform - no license fees, no devkits, no restrictions on content, no minimum standards to adhere to or approval process for submissions - PC's are dirt cheap. Yet the homebrewers would rather tear down any wall they see because they've decided every platform must be open, regardless of how that affects anyone outside their particular clique.

As far as I'm concerned, the needs and wishes of people who bought a product for its intended purpose should always take precedence over hobbyists who want to mod it to do something else.

Another great post. I think this is how most OFW users feel.

 

[mclem]

Once again: It *shouldn't* affect anyone outside their 'particular clique', as you put it. But the onus is on Sony and software coders to ensure that that is the case. Which you do by designing things better, not by chasing after the homebrewers while screaming and waving lawyers.

The PC is wide open, yet you don't hear about mass cheating rampant over Team Fortress 2.

 

[spwolf]

It's a printer, it's designed to use cartridges approved by the manufacturer. It's a router, it's designed to use the firmware provided by the maker. It's a phone, it's designed to use software approved by the manufacturer.

So, you are against jailbreaking phones too, right and you think that should be against the law?

You think we should only be able to purchase ink cartridges from the manufacturer?

for the record, I am not sure if you realize this, but courts have not declared jailbreaking of the phones legal, they specifically note that it is not theirs to judge if it is legal or not, but that DMCA(copyright law) is not the vehicle to question its legality.

Apple on the other hand, denies the warranty for jailbroken phones.

Keep in mind that only 3 months ago, courts decided that computer software is not yours to own and that companies have a right to forbid the resale of it.

You seem to be thinking that DMCA exemption for phones means a lot more than it actually does.

 

[squatingyeti]

Why the constant wayward comparisons?

A game console by its definition has always been meant to play software approved by the manufacturer. Again, why don't you just stick with a PC if that's such a big problem for you?

This is getting ridiculous. Why don't you shake your fist at Microsoft and Nintendo for denying you to play anything you want on their systems as well?

How is it that you guys just can't get why the comparisons? You keep saying you see no reason why we should be able and allowed to do some things. I show you reasons and comparisons from other closed systems. Then, you just say stick with the PC if it's a problem.

The problem comes down to, do we own the devices we purchase and are we therefore able to have fair use to do things we want with them?

The Wii has been opened up and so has the 360 (if you have a system before a certain update). I most certainly support being able to do the same on either system. Why do you think I don't? My issue comes when people support the right to do so being not only denied, but illegal and worthy of being sued.

The iPhone, by its definition, has always been meant to play software approved by the manufacturer. The EFF successfully argued that consumers should be able hack the system and use software not approved by the manufacturer. How is that closed system fundamentally different from this closed system? The only answer put forth so far has been that Sony stands to lose due to piracy, ignoring Apple stood to lose as well, and is furthermore, an absurd justification.

 

[iammeiam]

So, for you guys claiming that the "razor and blades" business model is not something Sony should be allowed to protect, would you support a much higher introductory price for Sony's next console? GAF asploded from the 599 US DOLLARS thing as it was.

Most do not care about Sony protecting their own business model--ban users from PSN, play the constant firmware update game they so love, sue the ever-loving crap out of the actual pirates, whatever.

What people are opposed to are laws designed in such a way to protect the business model on Sony's behalf--Sony wants to undertake a risky business model, fine. They should not be accorded 'special' legal status because they chose to do so--the argument that they deserve more legal protection than Apple because piracy hurts them more is what people find objectionable.

Sony's business model for the PS3 was a risk, and even without piracy it was a pretty big failure this gen (as I understand it, there's absolutely no chance they're breaking even on the thing.) But the thing that makes a risk a risk is that sometimes you lose, and the courts shouldn't elevate one corporation's rights over another solely because said corporation made a bad business play.

The DMCA means geohot is most likely currently guilty, that's generally accepted. The dispute seems to be whether or not Sony should get a free pass on a potential console exception, because they took a risk.

 

[DonMigs85]

Once again: It *shouldn't* affect anyone outside their 'particular clique', as you put it. But the onus is on Sony and software coders to ensure that that is the case. Which you do by designing things better, not by chasing after the homebrewers while screaming and waving lawyers.

The PC is wide open, yet you don't hear about mass cheating rampant over Team Fortress 2.

They probably have a strict code of honor, unlike the degenerate PSN users.

 

[Rebel Leader]

They probably have a strict code of honor, unlike the degenerate PSN users.

*hhmm hmm* Gentlemen

 

[squatingyeti]

for the record, I am not sure if you realize this, but courts have not declared jailbreaking of the phones legal, they specifically note that it is not theirs to judge if it is legal or not, but that DMCA(copyright law) is not the vehicle to question its legality.

Apple on the other hand, denies the warranty for jailbroken phones.

Keep in mind that only 3 months ago, courts decided that computer software is not yours to own and that companies have a right to forbid the resale of it.

You seem to be thinking that DMCA exemption for phones means a lot more than it actually does.

For the record, you must have missed my post stating, since courts don't rule what is right or wrong, merely what the law says, it is most likely that Hotz will lose. Until someone challenges the various portions of the DMCA, the DMCA as a whole in an effective manor, or the EFF argues to the LoC for another exemption, we will continue to face the consequences.

I have no problem with a company denying the warranty for any device that is jailbroken. I completely agree with that and feel once I change something, they no longer have to warranty it. However, I don't think they should be able to sue me for fair use and I don't think I should be vilified if I hack their system.

Do you agree with the court on their ruling? Do you also realize the problem with such a ruling? This isn't just for software, the ruling was that anything with a license could dictate that you could not resell the item and many things beyond that. That means The ramifications for such are ridiculous.

No, I think the DMCA exemption for phones was put in place to protect, what the LoC saw as fair use. In fact, that was even commented on in the exemption, that without the fair use ruling, the DMCA would crush jailbreaking of phones and thus, hurt consumer rights.

 

[Safe Bet]

The homebrew advocates are crying foul because Sony's infringing on their right to modify the things they buy. Normally I'd be 100% supportive. But when those mods also lead to problems for the (far greater number of) people who bought that product for its intended purpose, who's protecting those consumers?

 

[N.A]

Why the constant wayward comparisons?

A game console by its definition has always been meant to play software approved by the manufacturer. Again, why don't you just stick with a PC if that's such a big problem for you?

This is getting ridiculous. Why don't you shake your fist at Microsoft and Nintendo for denying you to play anything you want on their systems as well?

We can run our own code on both the 360 (via J-tag hack or with limited access via XNA) and Wii (lots of methods). The difference between these and Sony is that neither of them went after the hackers (in fact Microsoft invited them to their HQ where the hackers detailed the exploits before releasing them so Microsoft could patch them first).

- Console manufacturers should be allowed to protect their system (though having the option to run your own code is great, this is what OtherOS initially allowed).
- Hackers should be allowed to break the protection as long as piracy is not a goal and any files released don't contain copyright code.
- All pirates should be sued.

 

[jorma]

So, for you guys claiming that the "razor and blades" business model is not something Sony should be allowed to protect, would you support a much higher introductory price for Sony's next console? GAF asploded from the 599 US DOLLARS thing as it was.

It's just not a business model the government should protect, especially not at the expense of individual rights.

 

[Vinci]

Cool. Opiate and squatingyeti are basically covering everything better than I would anyway. Cannot believe some of the shit being spewed in this thread.

So, for you guys claiming that the "razor and blades" business model is not something Sony should be allowed to protect, would you support a much higher introductory price for Sony's next console? GAF asploded from the 599 US DOLLARS thing as it was.

Oh, they're allowed to protect it if they like, but it's an utterly dumb as shit thing to protect seeing how utterly costly the strategy is more often than not.

 

[Safe Bet]

They're denying me the ability to use apps or play games they have not approved.

You were fully aware of this when you bought the machine, so...

WHY DID YOU BUY IT?

 

[N.A]

You were fully aware of this when you bought the machine, so...

WHY DID YOU BUY IT?

If you bought a PS3 with OtherOS this was not the case...

 

[fart town usa]

my post isn't directed towards you N.A

If you bought a PS3 with OtherOS this was not the case...

otherOS was removed because people were not using it for it's intended function, e.g., geohot and his efforts in trying to backdoor his way into the system via wires, tape and linux.

January 26, 2010- Geohot announces on his blog that he has found a way to expolit the ps3 through the OtherOS function of the machine, it consists of a Linux kernel module and gaining control of the machine's hypervisor via bus glitching.

March 28, 2010, Sony responds by announcing to release a PlayStation 3 firmware update that removes the OtherOS feature.

Sony never would have removed the otherOS feature if it wasn't for these actions. How often was otherOS mentioned in gaming news before geohot stepped in and tried to hack the system? Rarely, if at all. It was an awesome feature that provided the homebrew community a way to be creative with the most open home console ever created.

"it was fully intended that you, a PS3 owner, could play games, watch movies, view photos, listen to music, and run a full-featured Linux operating system that transforms your PS3 into a home computer."

I'm not a sony fanboy but I find it amazing at how some people feel they're entitled to everything. Yes Sony is going to the extremes because of the leaked codes but what did people expect would happen? They have to protect their company and make sure their shareholders and 3rd party developers feel secure.

Owning an electronics device and wanting to make it do custom things does not give you the right to release all the tools and instructions to the internet. That's irresponsible as can be. Does anyone expect Sony to release a console as open as the PS3 next gen? I highly doubt it, it blew up in their face. Some people can never be satiated and it's quite pathetic/disgusting.

 

[YoungHav]

I dunno why the media spent all that energy shitting on Julian Assange when scum like GeoHotz are allowed to usher in chaos.

 

[DonMigs85]

Some people can never be satiated and it's quite pathetic/disgusting.

Speaking of which, I wonder why Dambrosi got banned?

 

[Melchiah]

A closed system is, by its nature, closed.

Closed systems have advantages and disadvantages over open systems. Among the advantages are quality control and standardization of features by the platform holder - there's a submission and approval process in place for software, ensuring that all titles released meet certain minimum standards. Closed platforms are also generally perceived as more secure than open ones, something that makes them more appealing to developers - fewer sales lost to piracy, less time and effort having to police online games and enact anti-cheating measures, etc.

Believe it or not, there are a lot of people out there who want a 'walled garden' for the advantages it provides. That's what they bought a console for - QA, exclusive software, etc. And I find it hard to empathize with the people who say that a hardware manufacturer doesn't have the right to declare a given platform closed. If there were no easily-available open platforms, I might feel differently. But if someone wants to develop for an open platform - no license fees, no devkits, no restrictions on content, no minimum standards to adhere to or approval process for submissions - PC's are dirt cheap. Yet the homebrewers would rather tear down any wall they see because they've decided every platform must be open, regardless of how that affects anyone outside their particular clique.

As far as I'm concerned, the needs and wishes of people who bought a product for its intended purpose should always take precedence over hobbyists who want to mod it to do something else.

Once again, I applaud your post.

People need to stop with the weak argument that its a "game console"

This generation no longer has game consoles. They have interactive media devices targeted at taking over the "home media center" pc boxes.

But smartphones are just that, portable computers that people want to mod like their pc to do what they want it to do. Its now the same with Sony's box, somewhat with Nintendo and Microsoft.

Game console, home media center, potato, potaeto. The fact remains they're closed systems.

People may want to do many things, but are they entitled to do what they want? Most often than not, the answer is no.

If you bought a PS3 with OtherOS this was not the case...

You do realize, that RSX was disabled in OtherOS from the very beginning?

 

[DonMigs85]

Game console, home media center, potato, potaeto. The fact remains they're closed systems.

People may want to do many things, but are they entitled to do what they want? Most often than not, the answer is no.

And what bugs me is that many of these people were perfectly content WITHOUT any homebrew for nearly 4 years.

 

[arne]

We can run our own code on both the 360 (via J-tag hack or with limited access via XNA) and Wii (lots of methods). The difference between these and Sony is that neither of them went after the hackers (in fact Microsoft invited them to their HQ where the hackers detailed the exploits before releasing them so Microsoft could patch them first).

this was really the only issue i have ever had with the way this whole thing apparently went down. nobody did what i've always considered the ethical hacker thing and give Sony a heads up before detailing their findings or going so far as to release the keys/CFW, etc.

at least, if there were attempts to bring this all to sony's attention, i don't recall seeing it mentioned.

usually that forces the company to act or, if they do not, it's basically their own damn fault.

i don't know if it would have made a difference to sony's reaction of the whole thing, but i'd certainly have a different perception of all the players involved if they tried. at least with something where it's the result of a critical mistake in key generation (or non-generation).

 

[Melchiah]

otherOS was removed because people were not using it for it's intended function, e.g., geohot and his efforts in trying to backdoor his way into the system via wires, tape and linux.

January 26, 2010- Geohot announces on his blog that he has found a way to expolit the ps3 through the OtherOS function of the machine, it consists of a Linux kernel module and gaining control of the machine's hypervisor via bus glitching.

March 28, 2010, Sony responds by announcing to release a PlayStation 3 firmware update that removes the OtherOS feature.

Sony never would have removed the otherOS feature if it wasn't for these actions. How often was otherOS mentioned in gaming news before geohot stepped in and tried to hack the system? Rarely, if at all. It was an awesome feature that provided the homebrew community a way to be creative with the most open home console ever created.

"it was fully intended that you, a PS3 owner, could play games, watch movies, view photos, listen to music, and run a full-featured Linux operating system that transforms your PS3 into a home computer."

I'm not a sony fanboy but I find it amazing at how some people feel they're entitled to everything. Yes Sony is going to the extremes because of the leaked codes but what did people expect would happen? They have to protect their company and make sure their shareholders and 3rd party developers feel secure.

Owning an electronics device and wanting to make it do custom things does not give you the right to release all the tools and instructions to the internet. That's irresponsible as can be. Does anyone expect Sony to release a console as open as the PS3 next gen? I highly doubt it, it blew up in their face. Some people can never be satiated and it's quite pathetic/disgusting.

Exactly!

I find it ridiculous, that people are blaming Sony for doing the only thing they could do to protect themselves, their partners, and their customers from what GeoHot did. It's like blaming the shepherd for putting a fence around his sheep, instead of blaming the wolf that attacked the flock.

 

[iapetus]

It's like blaming the shepherd for putting a fence around his sheep, instead of blaming the wolf that attacked the flock.

Yay! The shitty analogies are back!

(Sony's reaction was to block up the lairs of badgers, mice, squirrels and hamsters because they were pissed off at what the wolf may have been going to do in the future...)

 

[gogogow]

Exactly!

I find it ridiculous, that people are blaming Sony for doing the only thing they could do to protect themselves, their partners, and their customers from what GeoHot did. It's like blaming the shepherd for putting a fence around his sheep, instead of blaming the wolf that attacked the flock.

(I'm not taking any sides in this endless cycle of discussion of who's right or wrong)
It seems Geohot only opened the fence, so that the sheep had a bigger field to walk on and more grass to eat, but at the same time, wolves (online cheaters/pirates) could get into the place where Sony put down the fences. Some sheeps walked away and likes the grass outside the fences (homebrewers). Sony closed the fence (OFW 3.56) and denied entrance who walked away.

 

[iapetus]

Sony never would have removed the otherOS feature if it wasn't for these actions.

Exactly, which is why that feature was maintained in the PS3 slim.

No, hang on a second...

 

[N.A]

Exactly, which is why that feature was maintained in the PS3 slim.

No, hang on a second...

Coincidentally, Ubuntu now works on PS3 slims and fats with RSX access and access to the 8th spu!

 

[Melchiah]

Yay! The shitty analogies are back!

The other side hasn't got exclusive rights for them.

 

[Jocchan]

Yay! The shitty analogies are back!

(Sony's reaction was to block up the lairs of badgers, mice, squirrels and hamsters because they were pissed off at what the wolf may have been going to do in the future...)

Wait, did they ever leave?

 

[BritBloke916]

Coincidentally, Ubuntu now works on PS3 slims and fats with RSX access and access to the 8th spu!

Off-topic, but it will be interesting what percentage of PS3's actually have eight fully operational SPU's (it was my understanding that the reason for only using seven was so that Cell's would pass QA testing even if one of their SPU's proved to be faulty).

 

[BritBloke916]

Yay! The shitty analogies are back!

The shitty analogies are a way for GAF to argue about complex legal matters that are actually far beyond the professional experience of almost everyone posting in this thread (certainly including myself). Since GAF members want to talk about the case, but generally lack the knowledge to have actual informed debate on the finer points of current legislation, due process and legal precedent, it inevitably turns into a battle of shitty analogies or comments along the lines of "regardless of whatever the law actually is, in my opinion this is how it SHOULD be". Now, there's nothing wrong with that, but that's pretty much all you're going to find here. Expecting otherwise is unrealistic.

 

[fart town usa]

Exactly, which is why that feature was maintained in the PS3 slim.

No, hang on a second...

http://www.osnews.com/story/22073/Why_NtherOS_Option_on_PS3_Slim_Sony_Answers

"I’m sorry that you are frustrated by the lack of comment specifically regarding the withdrawal of support for OtherOS on the new PS3 slim. The reasons are simple: The PS3 Slim is a major cost reduction involving many changes to hardware components in the PS3 design. In order to offer the OtherOS install, SCE would need to continue to maintain the OtherOS hypervisor drivers for any significant hardware changes – this costs SCE. One of our key objectives with the new model is to pass on cost savings to the consumer with a lower retail price. Unfortunately in this case the cost of OtherOS install did not fit with the wider objective to offer a lower cost PS3."

later in the article

"Please be assured that SCE is committed to continue the support for previously sold models that have the “Install Other OS” feature and that this feature will not be disabled in future firmware releases."

So basically, sony removed the feature from the slim in order to cut costs, not that much different from when sony removed ps2 backwards compatibility and the media card slots. Why did they try to cut costs? Probably because people were still raving about how expensive the system cost. I know this is a different topic entirely but you can't expect a company who is already losing money on a console to just magically lower the price because people feel it's too expensive.

Also, it shows that they had no intention of removing the otherOS option because it was never a security issue until geohot stepped in and tried to hack the system, via the otherOS feature. Geohot caused the otherOS feature to be removed, why is that so hard for some people to accept?


http://www.myce.com/news/sony-apologizes-for-killing-linux-on-the-ps3-28347/

"We are sorry if users of Linux or other operating systems are disappointed by our decision to issue a firmware upgrade which when installed disables this operating system feature. We have made the decision to protect the integrity of the console and whilst mindful of the impact on Linux or other operating system users we nevertheless felt it would be in the best interests of the majority of users to pursue this course of action.”

“As you will be aware we have upgraded and enhanced functionality and features of the console by numerous firmware upgrades over time and this is a very rare instance where a feature will be disabled. Further enhancements are in the pipeline.”

“Users do have the choice whether to install the firmware upgrade and this is clearly explained to them at the time the firmware upgrade is made available for installation. Furthermore our terms and conditions clearly state that we have the right to revise the PS3’s settings and features in order to prevent access to unauthorised or pirated content."

 

[Ponn]

Once again: It *shouldn't* affect anyone outside their 'particular clique', as you put it. But the onus is on Sony and software coders to ensure that that is the case.

Yes, but even in your scenario here it is still affecting EVERYONE. Who do you think is going to pay the added costs to hunt down cheaters and program stronger protection measures. And who is going to end up having to deal with these stricter protection measures. And how many features will be stripped from the next consoles R and D and not even added because they are too vulnerable.

 

[mugurumakensei]

Yes, but even in your scenario here it is still affecting EVERYONE. Who do you think is going to pay the added costs to hunt down cheaters and program stronger protection measures. And who is going to end up having to deal with these stricter protection measures. And how many features will be stripped from the next consoles R and D and not even added because they are too vulnerable.

Cheating on COD4 was occuring before any kind of jailbreak came out as the game had an unencrypted save which allowed people to enable godmode.

There were also ways to glitch the MW2 save as well to enabled godmode without jailbreaking.

There will always be ways to cheat in online games regardless of whether the system itself has been hacked or not. If you're going to offer a robust online service, licensing a cheat detection system or creating one yourself is the only way to go.

 

[jcm]

Exactly, which is why that feature was maintained in the PS3 slim.

No, hang on a second...

Sony was under no obligation to support it on the slim. Companies add and remove features during hardware revisions all the time, and as far as I'm concerned, that's fine.

Taking it out of the fats was shitty, and they deserve to lose their lawsuit.