PS3 lawsuits threaten entire gaming industry

If recent lawsuits against Sony regarding the removal of the Other OS feature on the PS3 console go forward ending with a court decision against Sony all gamers will pay the price. Simply put, a ruling against Sony in this matter would be a death keel for innovation throughout the entire gaming industry. It would effectively tie the hands of console makers among others from this point forward.

[sid4gamerfreak]

being a little optimistic are we?

[Anon1974]

I think the article raises a valid points (although, this is coming from the author). A ruling against Sony in this case would invalidate User Agreements in the eyes of the law, it wouldn't just be a simple ruling against Sony. Everyone uses these type of clauses.

The effects of this would be very serious indeed and would fundamentally change what companies could and couldn't do with their software once it's sold to the consumers and could be one of the biggest blows to the gaming industry we could see in our lifetime.

And yet there's seven people claiming this article is "lame". This is a serious issue staring down the gaming industry. Why is it no one is willing to talk about it? Take off your fanboy googles and try to grasp the significance of the outcome of this case. This isn't just a matter concerning Sony updating their console. This has the potential to change everything, for everyone.

[-Alpha]

Wall of text, apologies in advance: Don't mean this offensively but I think that's a little overdramatic and the article attempts to try being over-dramatic to make the article sound interesting. Nothing wrong with that though (I'll get back to this point later). The reason I say this is because this kind of problem has existed way before gaming.

Anyone remember people suing McDonald's because it got them fat? What came out of that, a McDonald's Fast Food law? I see this issue as minor. No, Sony did not take the BEST course of action-- banning ONLY known hackers would have been more suitable but assuming that they were not able to do this it seemed it was in their best interest to protect the company. Not only does hacking damage their company but it also screws loyal customers who buy products legally. Should they start to sue Sony if Linux remains and piracy begins to become popular? None of us knows the legalities of the situation and that's where a lawyer works his magic. In all honesty we as gamers hate this as much as we hate people ripping on gaming being an acceptable entertainment form of media. Doesn't mean that people who oppose us/Sony don't have valid points, it just seems like people are making a big deal out of nothing. I'm open minded to the lawsuit and have no personal care for Sony losing this case because I gain nothing of them losing or winning. I dont work for Sony. Maybe that's why this article is so important. Maybe I should take a firmer stance against injustice. But we have such little information aside from the fact that people are suing BECAUSE THEY feel that Sony was unjust to them. Why? Who? Does anybody know the answers to this? I see good points raised on both sides that a judge could potentially go either way.

I think Sony will be alright. A case exists because of small loopholes like this but Sony isn't foolish to remove the OS without thinking of the consequences. I am sure they will be fine and this will all be forgotten. Surely they were smart enough to protect themselves for removing the feature. They are not idiots, they are a company that has existed and faced lawsuits before. I am more surprised that people have gone through the trouble of creating a lawsuit as I do not see why Linux was THAT Important to them. I have not seen Linux advertised which is another good point people bring up. This case seems to be viewed classically as the little guy trying to leech off of the big guy and though I don't know the people suing personally it seems like that is the case. McDonald's was protected from fat people suing them. If people are really trying to exploit Sony then I'm sure they will be protected against people like this too

@Thug

I see... Well hopefully Sony learned their lesson!

[Nike]

But most people are just annoyed (hence the "Lame" reports) because when Microsoft is hit with a lawsuit for anything - be it faulty hardware or "unethical practices" - almost every type of person who's not so much anti-360 or pro-PS3 as anti-Microsoft feels they're getting what they deserve. However, an article stating how Sony getting sued threatens the entire industry will inevitably draw sympathy from PS3 supporters, since...well, they're PS3 supporters after all.

I know there aren't that many comments agreeing with the article yet, but this being N4G, I'm guessing the people who reported the article know very well how it's going to be received.

On topic, it's an issue of terms of service and I'm sure Sony will win out. Just because Jack Thompson could bring several cases against video games to the courts doesn't mean he had a good chance of winning them in the face of ineffable facts (which in Thompson's case was "games being protected by the First Amendment, you friggin' nutjob").

[Persistantthug]

Alpha-Male22 said,
"Sony isn't foolish to remove the OS without thinking of the consequences."

*points down*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

[Darkstorn]

Ruling against Sony would ultimately be in the interest of the consumer, though. I don't think user agreements should be the be-all-end-all in terms of outside regulation, especially when features are involved.

[Anon1974]

That was the point of the article. User Agreements offer companies the flexibility they need to be able to adapt to a changing environment. Take that away from Sony and you take it away from everyone. It sets a precedent. While the title might seem a bit dramatic, when you think about it it's not that far off. The death of user agreements would forever alter how a company is allowed to alter software after it's sold to a customer. That has wide ranging implications beyond just games consoles.

In the end these types of cases are usually settled out of court and that's probably what these people are after. Rather then drag this through the courts and risk bad PR, it's more likely they'll be paid their "Shut the hell up" money and this will go away, which is probably what these people are betting on. There's better ways to get Linux then dragging this through the courts. But there's so much negativity, so many people saying "Damn straight! Serves Sony right." This article was more of a response to those, because it's clear they haven't thought through what the repercussions of a court ruling against this type of stipulation in the User Agreements would mean.

Everyone uses them. Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo. The right to change the software adjusting, updating and removing features is what enables us to have consoles that evolve. If the courts take that right away from everyone, then what?

[drdistracto707]

this whole thing reminds me of michael jackson

everyone hated him before he died, and then they worshiped him

here, nobody cared about Other OS, then all the sudden its the worst thing in the world when its gone?

I dont remember lawsuits when they removed Backwards Compatiblity, and for some reason Other OS is MORE important than that?

[randomwiz]

I agree with Alpha, this article is being WAY too overdramatic.

99.9% chance Sony will win the lawsuits

.1% chance that Sony will lose and the only consequence that Sony faces is that ps3 fat owners get reimbursed $1-30.

0% chance something else will happen.

[Lich120]

@ persistent

Every time someone talks about companies not being foolish I can't help but think of that ridiculous situation. A freaking rootkit?! Are you kidding me.

That said, I do agree with pretty much everything Alpha said.

[edgeofblade]

Instead of taking sides, let me point out the irony here:

When Microsoft does something to protect their profits, they are evil.

When Sony does something to protect their platform, the same people who called Microsoft evil now defend Sony.

And then there are the Linux-heads who call Sony evil for removing Other OS... and call Microsoft evil because it's written into their Linux-loving DNA.

Meanwhile, Joe Gamer wonders what that noise was.

[WikusVanDeMerwe]

Gotta agree with others on this one. As soon as I saw "death keel" in the header I thought "oh boy here we go" and knew then this bit of "news" was going to be over the top in one way or another.

Other than that I agree with and believe Sony, no matter the outcome, will be alright and learn from this lesson and move on but it will not be the death of them in any way.

[Christopher]

That's a massive slippery slope you're playing with there.

EULA set the terms that not only protect the business, but customers as well. While I know you said they shouldn't be "be-all-end-all" solutions, defining what is and isn't acceptable is extremely messy work on only leads to 1. businesses getting screwed over; 2. customers getting screwed over; 3. lawyers making lots of money.

No matter the outcome, in the end the result is still going to be unfair to the consumer. It's a need for this level of agreement by the users for use of the business' service/products that is going to be needed and the businesses will find a legal way to ensure that the level meets their needs in order to protect their business from the possibility of a frivolous lawsuit.

[FarEastOrient]

Well, I'll have to agree that Sony does have the right to remove the OS feature since we as gamers accepted the EULA. Why isn't anyone suing Hulu for being blocked on PS3 browsers...

I'm one of those "hackers" that haven't pirated any PS3 games, but I did get Starcraft, Command and Conquer, Crysis, and World of Warcraft to play on Yellow Dog Linux on PS3. I used their real licenses but I did have to hack to get them to play, I have no place to complain that Sony is removing this feature and others shouldn't.

If you've seen my comments before the reset of everyone's profile I do work for the US Army and this update hasn't stop plans to use PS3 clusters for supercomputers especially for the US Air Force.

[jf3sh13]

The problem as I see it is that sony has put into there user agreements that they can add or remove software without notice at there discretion and in this case they gave notice, and now there are people who I assume clicked the I agree button and are now filing lawsuits because they didn't read the agreement first, so if they win there lawsuit it will have ramifications not only for the gaming industry but for any business that uses such agreements, your mcdonalds reference does'nt make sense to me, I don't remember mcdonalds getting there customers to sign agreements stating they will get fat if they eat mcdonalds food? I usually find myself impressed by your well thought out and intelligent comments but this time I feel I must respectfully disagree

[Captain Tuttle]

A User Aggreement does not supercede the law...it does not give the issuer the right to break an existing law, it has nothing to do with law. The question for the lawsuits is not whether Sony has the right to uphold a User Agreement, it's whether Sony broke the law by removing a feature that it's customers paid for (I think it sucks they removed otherOS but I'm not sure if they broke the law...my gut tells me they did). There's precedent for this. California (I think) and most European countries have strong consumer protection laws, laws that all but cancel out a EULA.

[KozmoOchez]

Sony BMG =/= Sony Computer Entertainment

Completely different branches, plus we all know the music industry is super retarded and super corrupt

[Christopher]

***California (I think) and most European countries have strong consumer protection laws, laws that all but cancel out a EULA. ***

Partially correct. State laws supersede EULA, but do not negate them. What that means is that if there's a state law that requires companies to reimburse users who have been banned from a game, the company has to do that in that state regardless if their EULA says otherwise. It doesn't mean that the rest of the EULA is not valid or that they have to do as such in all states.

Lawyers utilize the severability clause in almost all agreements of this sort. The severability clause pretty much states that if any portion of the contract becomes unenforceable, it doesn't invalidate the rest of the contract.

[Captain Tuttle]

Interesting. Thanks cgoodno

[Perkel]

@ all above claiming sony did right and is right.

So if Sony remove feature of playin games you will still sayin it's right ?

It's the same with Linux. Linux was part of the system and Sony sold Fatps3 as linux platform too.
So removing it should be connected with reparations in cash because linux integration was part of the price you paid.

It's like mobile phone. You can't just sell iphone with Wi-fi and then after 3 years you have message from apple. Upgrade to newer Os and lose your Wi-fi or don't and then your iphone will not play any songs or video file.

Would you be happy with that ? :>

@ Captain Tuttle

all True

[Hideo_Kojima]

you do realise that if they are asked to pay back just $30 like you said to every ps3 phat owner that could cost them half a billion $?

No matter how big the company is that is a huge amount of moneyzz.

It is the cost of making 25 uncharted 2 games.

[rockleex]

Sony WARNED you before you updated your PS3.

If you want to use PSN, you have to follow its ToS and keep your PS3 updated. But you had a choice to update or not.

Sony did not forcefully come into each and everyone of our houses and update it secretly behind our backs.

Sony gave us a choice. Its up to each and every single one of us to decide whether PSN or Other OS is more important.

[CimmerianDrake]

The people who are pro-lawsuit continue to use the same flimsy excuse of "what if Sony BD playback or the ability to play games" obviously don't understand the monumental difference. Other OS is a perk, BD playback is a basic and key feature to the basic function of the console. Removing it would damage the PS3's most basic capabilities and no longer make it a game console and/or video player. Removing the Other OS option literally does nothing to hamper what the console was actually designed for, hence it is NOT the same thing.

You people seem to ignore key aspects of this decision in favor of trashing Sony with your alleged crusade for consumer rights. Well guess what, as a consumer, I have the right not to be threatened with identity theft. I have the right not to have to pay extra money for a game because theft has driven the market prices up to compensate for losses. I have the right not to be faced with increasingly strict DRM attempts to prevent further piracy.

You people seem to have forgotten about those rights haven't you? You really think consumers would win if Sony lost? In the war against piracy, consumers ALWAYS lose. You want that to stop, look to the hackers and crackers and make them stop. Because as long as they try to one up software and hardware companies, as long as they take the illegal routes because they are too lazy or too cheap to get a real job and actually pay for what they want, all companies will take measures to protect their bottom lines. Some measures are wrong, like the rootkit debacle. Some measures shouldn't be a big deal, like this one.

[Megaton]

I fail to see the correlation between Sony taking back something people paid for and the death of innovation in gaming.

I know I take an unpopular stance on this topic, particularly among the Sony loyalists, but I'm advocating for you guys, consumers. Just because the ToS says Sony can do this doesn't mean it's right. You buy something, they decide they don't want you using it anymore, they take it away without compensation. If you don't see how that's wrong, I don't know what to tell you.

[the-show-stopper]

nobody paid for other OS
other OS was a perk not a feature
besides Sony has a team of lawyers that cost more then all our ps3's put together who have looked to see if there was anyway Sony would lose a lawsuit about other OS being taken away

[Darkstorn]

Sony WILL win this case, but it's still an issue that should be discussed further.

[Persistantthug]

I agree with everything you just said Xiphos.

To me, this is a CONSUMER RIGHTS issue.

Also, because this case(s) is taking place in California, Sony could very well lose.

I predict they'll settle.

[CharlesDCI]

How much did the Other OS feature cost PS3 owners since you believe they need their money back. I know the PS3 cost me $600 when I bought the hardware. I'm not sure how much the Other OS feature takes from that price tag.

When you agree to the ToS that means you agree with their terms BEFORE you go ahead with the service, or owning the product. Why can't people understand this??? If you read the ToS and most of it sounds fishy or just plain wrong then return the thing. Unfortunately I don't see people doing that because it takes less energy to whine or think illogically than it does to get up and go back to the store to return the console.

[JD_Shadow]

It's not a Sony loyalist vs. the rest of the world issue, because so many people outside of the so-called "Sony loyalists" are siding with Sony on this one.

Why? Because why the hell SHOULD Sony have to pay for anything? No one gave a crap about this feature until it was removed. Then people just pretended that it was the only reason they BOUGHT a PS3. Seriously, these are frivolous suits that were filed because they thought Sony was vulnerable here. Who here actually USED this? Did they NOT remember that Sony didn't even include the feature on their Slim models (how many times will this point be completely ignored in this conversation, as that ALONE is enough to dismiss ALL these cases)? Those that think this is a case of Sony taking away features that they "promised", since WHEN did Sony even ADVERTISE this feature as being on the PS3? It was obvious that it was added as an afterthought. Why would I WANT to install Linux on my PS3, anyway? From what I saw on the YouTube videos about how you did it, it was painstakingly difficult and not worth my time (what the hell would I even USE it for?).

And before someone says it, yes, Microsoft HAS taken away options before (remember all the controversy concerning third party storage devices that happened just late last year). Thing is, the MS loyalists (since we're ON the subject of loyalists) just completely sided with MS without a second thought. And this doesn't mean we're siding with Sony on everything, either (BC needs to come back, as I think it will once the PS2 is officially retired from Sony support, as I believe it will this year). But on this one, this is the time that you SHOULD side with the "Sony loyalists".

@Persistantthug: On another about this topic, you talked as if you were one of the plaintiffs in one of the cases. I would love to see where you ever actually used this feature. If it bricked your console, then I could see where you would have a case, but it seems as though all it did was make you want to file a frivolous suit to get extra money for something you didn't use anyway. If you are one of the plaintiffs, I hope you lose.

EDIT@Xiphos Below: Yeah, I forgot to bring up that "point" about Blu Ray. Remember what I said about Sony never actually ADVERTISING the Other OS feature. Did they advertise the PS3 as a Blu Ray player? I rest my case.

I bought my PS3 never even knowing that the thing existed, and when I saw it, it was so buried that I thought "why bother? WHAT Other OS?" I never even considered that in my purchase, and many people who bought the PS3 would be THAT tech savvy to even CARE. And you completely ignore, AGAIN, as so many have in this debate, that Sony didn't even INCLUDE the feature in the Slim models, and THOSE launched last August, far away from when we even HEARD of George Holtz. Why didn't anyone sue THEN? Why didn't anyone care THEN, and why didn't anyone charge Sony with any of this crap THEN? I'm not saying this was the most intelligent decision Sony made, but it's not exactly anything I'm exactly losing sleep over! I think you're just reaching for a reason to flamebait the "Sony loyalists".

[Megaton]

Compensation for a particular feature is arbitrary, and not at all the point of this, but something that should have been worked out when they decided to steal features from their customers. Several of you have also completely ignored the part where I said the ToS covering Sony from being accused of wrongdoing doesn't mean they're innocent. Legally they might be clean, but it doesn't mean what they did was right.

You paid $600 for the whole package, which included the other OS feature. As someone else around here said in another article; what if Geohot figures out a hacking method that works through BluRay movie playback? If Sony decides to remove movie playback you're cool with that? It's just a feature right? You bought the console not the ability to play BluRay movies.

It's purely about consumer rights, and you guys are throwing yours away for Sony.

Edit - Just to be clear, I never used Linux on my PS3s and never planned on it. I'm not one of the bandwagon riders who hopped aboard as an excuse to further their anti-Sony agenda. I'm simply a strong believer in consumer rights.

[Therealspy03]

for those of you siding with sony because of their BS hacker excuse, you do realize hackers could just...hack...the firmware and allow for the installation of other OS's anyway, right? this isn't hurting the hackers, this is hurting the honest people who do things legitimately.

now, how is that hard to comprehend? it boggles my mind how willing the sheep are to support the major corporations instead of their peers.

[MetalFreakMike]

All this complaining and explaining about customer rights is getting out of hand. Everyone is acting like Sony is going to start removing every other feature now just because they took out the "OtherOS" feature. As the-show-stopper pointed out, "OtherOS" was not a feature as it was not advertised on as a feature. It was put in as a perk for people that wanted to run linux off of their PS3.

Sony is not dumb enough to start removing other features just because they can. Even if someone figures out how to run burned games off of the Blu-ray drive does not mean Sony will go and remove that feature as the console needs to read blu-ray to play games. Also this "Feature" was "Advertised" as a selling point for the console so if they took it out then we all can complain about it.

All these articles and complaining are getting really old really fast. People are just using this as a excuse to burn Sony.

[jerethdagryphon]

@ Xiphos

heres the coralation

guy buys car, car has gps link up.

gps linkup proves bad causes someone to steel your lisnence plate info (or something)

car maker says whoops thats bad for us and the consumer, they remotely disable gps linkup..

cars driver goes hey i needed that and sues.

guy wins:
car makers can no longer put changable (upgradable) features in cars

cars lose advancement and step back to 1990s. no new features no new tech. that can be remotley updated/altered

guy goes yea me i struck a blow for common man.

guy waiting for drive by wire crys as it wont come.

if sony loses then there can be no updates in anything

you buy a game, it updates causing you to lose oyur save you sue....

so no updates to games no firmware updates for new features
hell even windows will have problems with patches.

its BAD NEWS if sony loses. its not just about this incident.
its what it creates precedent for other lawsuits other problems its a snowball affect.

if you cant understand that then look at the wider picture

[DaTruth]

But I don't want piracy to screw with my awesome PS3 exclusives. If piracy were to run rampant on the PS3, I might end up with a $600 non-portable PSP. The games on PSP are just terrible and I'm almost certain that that is entirely due to piracy!

It may not be right, but it's in my best interest! I prefer to pay for great games, than pirate crappy games!

Edit @ DarkPower: I'm sure they had it flying past in at least one of the "It only does commercials". It only does Linux! Could be wrong here though.

[MysticStrummer]

Sorry Xiphos but if you can't see that this is not just a case of Sony deciding they don't want us to use a feature then I don't know what to tell you. That hacking jackazz exposed a hole that could get people's personal info stolen. Imagine what would happen if Sony just let that go and people's credit/debit card numbers were taken.

[zag]

You do understand that before anyone gets paid out the court is going to want people to first prove they used the feature and then ask what they did with Linux on the PS3.

Just because yellow dog is installed doesn't mean you made use of it.

You'd have to explain what you were doing and why etc, no court is just going to hand out cash just becuase people are wanting cash.

Also the Class action cases HAVE TO prove that it's an advertised feature and you'll find it's never been a one in law.

Also if anyone has upgraded their firmware will have to prove that they didn't agree to the T&Cs before installing the update.

Also even if the ruling goes in favour of the class action, do you really think Sony isn't going to appeal the case.

It'll be years plus anyone sees a cent from this.

Plus you forget that the lawyers will be wanting their cut of the money and it'll probably be 75%+ so the end result is going to be minor in terms of cash paid.

[beavis4play]

from the article: "Sony’s decision was based on this little used feature becoming a gateway for hackers to plunder the PS3, pirate software, steal your credit card info and pretty much wreck havoc on your Playstation gaming console. The hack was announced boldly to the world by the ones responsible so others could do the same, prompting Sony to remove the entire flawed feature in response to this threat on their customer base."

so, what don't you understand? your post is (almost) literally what the hackers response was to this.
it's hackers and their actions that brought sony to this action - and i think it's the right thing to do.

[Luzce]

No Beavis, it is absolutely NOT the right thing to do. Some people may have bought a $300 PS3 as a console to simply to play video games on, but some of us paid $600 for a piece of hardware that did much more.

This would be the same as Sony removing the ability of my PS3 of playing SACDs or reading Memory Sticks. I agree, hardly anybody has even heard of SACDs, but a small minority may have even decided to shell out the extra cash over, say, a 360, because it provided this extra functionality.

I was one of the early adopters who paid the premium precisely because of all the features. I had installed Ubuntu on my PS3, and although I'll agree that I rarely used it, I can see users who came to depend on it as their home theater computer or whatever.

[facelike]

"This would be the same as Sony removing the ability of my PS3 of playing SACDs or reading Memory Sticks."

I wouldn't have a problem with them removing it if that SACD feature could allow someone to hack into my PS3 and obtain my account number, credit card number, personal info, etc.

If it's truly for the safety of using the platform, then it's good. Especially if were talking the theft of stolen info. Imagine if they left the feature in and someone stole your credit card number or stole the money from your account, would you be defending the hacker then. If someone used your name and address to buy a car or ship stolen merchandise to your home, would you like that?

This has happen on Xbox live already, it gets hacked and people suddenly find all kind of charges on there credit cards. I do not want that to happen here.

[Marceles]

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

[ikkeweer]

lol, one person's optimism is anothers pessimism.
No one really cares about this lawsuit, unless they win, then it's going to be a real big deal.
But they won't win, pretty much every manufacturer has taken things away, if they were for the better overall.
Anyone even watch Toyota for the last few years? (I need that software Toyota, don't you dare take it out, one sec., I need to stop for those lights)

[Mr Tretton]

"I dont remember lawsuits when they removed Backwards Compatiblity, and for some reason Other OS is MORE important than that?"

That's not the same thing. And I think you know that. BC wasn't removed from my 60 GB.

Anyway, this is all BS. Opprotunist BS.

Find the fools that are filing this lawsuit and destroy them. The End.

[mastiffchild]

@edgeofblade-it isn't that, imo, people are saying Sony are doing this to protect the future of gaming and that's why we support them in this case. No, the fact is that, however altruistic or otherwise Sony are being the net effect is that PS3 gamers future gaming is being protected in terms of quality and quantity.

Also, had MS done something similar and been taken to court(i.e something to prevent piracy and potentially turning devs away from their platform and hurting THEIR gamers) we'd ALL(well almost) have stuck by them as well. I have no love for any console maker-I occasionally love the things they provide or the way they do certain things but I'm not naive enough to think they do anything FOR me that isn't really FOR THEMSELVES.

Whatever, Geohot 's only possible reason for doing what he did was the ultimate chance of piracy after CFW-why isn't he getting the blame? Sony are just preventing what happened with PSP going to PS3. It's fair enough and should MS have done the same kind of thing they'd be just as right.

Nobody used other OS and those that have lost out should look at the man who moved the goalposts and not Sony. I cannot believe how greedy and litigious some people are either-feebly selfish. Anyway, shoukld the feature be THAT important they can keep it but Sony saying you have to abide by their terms to use THEIR PSN seems fair to me. Sony won't lose the case, either.

[Tony P]

Oh please, drama queen.

Sony losing here does not equate with the downfall of gaming. It just means change. *Hopefully* for the better.

If they lost, they would certainly not be the first company unable to hide behind a ToS agreement.

[mindedone]

so I didn't post one that mirrored yours. I don't know why people think this is the first, second, or even hundredth time the fairness andlawfullness of a contract has been challenged in the software industry

[AAACE5]

A lawsuit against Sony threatens the entire industry because of an OS issue, which has nothing to do with gaming. So now every gamer should take up arms to defend Sony for something that is not directly tied to gaming?

Yet, when the 360 had it's problems, and gamers were trying to sue MS, where was the support? Why didn't anyone want to rally the troops for gaming on a real issue?

I just don't get some people's logic! If a console they don't like has problems, they wish it would die off, not concerned with the overall effect it will have on the entire industry. Yet when a console they like is in trouble, they want everyone to get involved.

If you want to be involved in gamer politics, you have to be a fan of the entire industry, not just a fanboy interested in one console.

So again, the OS issue is not directly tied to gaming, so technically there is no threat!

[commodore64]

This article misses the point, entirely.

The gaming market is HUGE!
Companies are falling over each other to secure marketshare.
The idea that this lawsuit will somehow stop companies from innovating is probably the biggest load of codswallop I have heard on this site.

The lawsuit being brought against Sony, will serve to protect minority consumers from being steamrolled by a Conglomerate's (Sony, in this case) profit agenda.

What's more, Sony's specific actions are not repeated elsewhere.
The xbox360 has not removed any features (of the original point of sale) , yet it has continually added them.
The Wii has also not removed features.

The only company that seems keen on removing features, is Sony.
First it was backwards compatibility, now it is Linux.

Of course, very importantly, in the case of linux, the consumer has NO CHOICE, and of course, THAT is what the lawsuit is about.
Is it just me or does the article simply not get the distinction here?

Sony's actions have to do with removal of a feature that was inherently a part of the purchase price package.
Other manufacturers do not repeat this pattern at all.

I am very surprised this got approved. We certainly can do better than excusing the deceptive behaviour of a major conglomerate like Sony in this matter, especially when the comparison to other EULAs and TOUs is grossly out of context and inappropriately simplified.

As for the repercussions to the gaming industry, I shudder at the fantasy and 'flight of imagination' of the author. Is he for real?

Next.

[Instinct_Gamer]

**Of course, very importantly, in the case of linux, the consumer has NO CHOICE, and of course, THAT is what the lawsuit is about.**

Do you even know what your talking about???
There was a CLEAR CHOICE IN BLACK AND WHITE that said you can CHOOSE TO UPDATE OR NOT, as with any update. If you don't wanna update then sign out of PSN and use it for your Linux. They just don't want hackers on PSN.. What don't you understand about that? At times it sounded like your post was attempting to sound somewhat intelligent, but your information is completely wrong. Do you even have a PS3?? Did you read the terms of service when you signed up for PSN???? What good is a contract if any Lazy basterd, that wants to file some frivolous lawsuit would actually win? I'm glad you are not a Judge cause you are not of sound mind.

[LoVeRSaMa]

'When Sony announced that their latest update to their popular PS3 platform would remove the Other OS feature on older model PS3’s, most PS3 owners either shrugged it off or asked “I could install another OS?'

Latest?
It was removed in 3.21 the latest update is 3.30

[MEsoJD]

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

just because theres people that didn't care too much for the feature, doesn't make it right.
Sony could remove the ability to play movies or games, then you bastards would be pissed off.

I don't know about you guys but I work hard. I bought my 60 gb with $600 hard earned dollars and I expect to have every feature that came with it.

Oh wait you can use the TOS argument against me but the majority of people just click and agree to it without reading it.

Also you can say Sony did this to protect themselves. So what if another exploit was discovered to take advantage of the system. Would Sony remove that too???

Geohotz: Hey guys I hacked the system through the blueray movie feature!!!
Sony: Oh FCUK, its time to remove the ability to play blueray movies.

[UltraNova]

The only people who could be and rightfully so affected are the professionals and academics that use the ps3' OS function to create computer clusters to help them with their scientific projects.

Then again one would expect more from these professionals as a question arises from this; did those professionals read and examined all facets of the user agreement upon purchasing the systems? Did they even have a lawyer to examine those agreement terms before accepting them?

The other group are hackers which I dont care about and neither should anyone if they got affected.

As far as I see it things are simple here. This is indeed a case of small guy leeching on the big guy through new found loopholes as alpha stated above.

Most importantly Sony is fully covered by their user agreement contract. If the people who sued Sony win this then prepare for a new era of law suit saturation. Basically if they find the way to bypass contracts like this then I am afraid court rooms will have their jobs cut out for a long time to come!

Time will tell i guess..

[JsonHenry]

Nah. It would just keep them from taking away features that were promised when we bought our products. It wouldn't keep them from innovating anything. No one is complaining because they are improving/adding anything. Just the stuff they are taking away. This was probably put forth by Sony as a PR move.

[Pika-pie]

Im sure Sony would put the feature back with hacks fixed before having to pay out huge amounts of cash to the pathetic whinners out there.

[N4g_null]

Seriously people with out updating you can not effectively use the PS3 in a computer cluster. It locks you out of networking features, which is how most super computers are built.

Come one people the only people that are going to win this lawsuit are the super computer users, if they join the fight it's all over and SONY will get hit pretty hard, or they can simply provide some workaround yet that workaround will get leaked.

Seriously I thought the massives size of blu ray would stop pirating right, not really, most data on disk is filler or uncompressed, hacking this and compressing data would solve all of that and SONY knows this.

Yet SONY can win this case and then the super computer owners may actualy join the fight to unlock the PS3, many of this groups have the expertize and it would lead to this system getting hacked even faster.

Most of these people bought like 2,000 PS3 on avg. You can almost say 500,000 to 1,000,000 PS3s may be used for some sort of super computer network.

I understand this is scary to most of you but there is nothing you can do but wait and hope this works all out. The Wii and the xbox are fully hacked yet they still sell tons of games so really SONY should be fine.

What killed the PSP was developers would nolonger support it with games and SONY could not expand the market to non tech heads which usually haack stuff.

[THC CELL]

All the courts in the world would be happy if Sony is protecting piracy

[8thnightvolley]

yeah i dont see how sony would lose .. coz its in everyone's best intrest that it was taken out...

i wouldnt like my details to be hacked on my account that would suck.

[Lucreto]

Trophy support,
ingame music,
ingame XMB,
HOME,
Vidzone,
Video store,
themes,
Dynamic themes,
Life with Playstation,
Custom avatars,
Minis playable on PS3,
Ability to play DivX and WMV files that are 2 GB or larger,
Improved XMB navigation,
Added Facebook support,
BBC player,
The PS3 and wireless controllers can now be set to turn off automatically
The PS3 can be set to automatically turn off after a background download
Blu-ray Disc playback supports DTS-HD Master Audio and DTS-HD High Resolution Audio output
Blu-ray BD-Live Profile 2.0.

Also update for 3D gaming and Move support on some games coming soon.

I think I have been well compensated for the loss of an insignificant feature over the years. There are just a lot of spoiled brats out there as far as I am concerned.

[UnwanteDreamz]

Thank you! The list you provided will just keep growing.

[Lucreto]

If people can add to the list it will be much appreciated. I have been using it in Sonys defence.

[ABizzel1]

I agree with you. People are just complaining and trying to get money anyway they can. Hopefully they waste their time finding an attorney who's also looking to fatten his pockets, and the court dismisses their case leaving them with court and attorney fees.

The only people who could possible be upset with this are hackers and companies that run a supercomputer from PS3 clusters. And even then only the supercomputer buyers should be upset, however, I'm sure that Sony personally reached them and told them not to update the console if their using the PS OS which I'm guessing they don't.

It sucks that it was taken out, because I was one of the people who took the time out to install it, but deal with it. We lost the Other OS feature it's not the end of the world and no other companies are not going to start taking features out claiming that it's for piracy protection. So stop the crying.

[Hotel_Moscow]

internet browser
photo gallery
non seizure causing themes when playing music
remote play
printer support

[sajj316]

Amen brotha!! I certainly am intrigued on how all this plays out. Sony has added a ton more features than taken out. Should I pay Sony for the additional stuff?

[fOrlOnhOpe57]

FREE online gaming.

[Lucreto]

I was going for items that we got through firmware updates. I thank all the above and below me who contribute to the list.

If somehow Sony lost and we all get a cheque for a small amount I would rip it up as they did what was right and I support them for it.
I wish I could reply again but just having 3 bubbles is a annoyance.

[the-show-stopper]

if i got a cheque from Sony id use it to buy a ps3 exclusive game
at least that way im giving some of it back
either that or ill donate to a chairty

[mookins]

Amen.

[Montrealien]

I agree we got some nice features with the PS3 and myself I would never sue sony for money because of a feature they remove. However to open the flood gates and let the companies have the right to remove any feature they please from a product I bought is a no go. Would we be defending Sony if they disabled any of the features you listed, WiFi for example? or the backward compatibility of the original PS3? of course not.

And to think this will kill progress in the gaming industry is absurd. This lawsuit is to defend us from big companies screwing around with us, and I hope most of you understand this.

[Gamer_89]

its not that they used the feature and think of the great things sony has offers us like free service vidzone and free online play

[unrealgamer58]

lol dont do drugs while you're pregnant ladies, thats all im saying

[mushroomwig]

Is it wrong that I actually facepalmed in real life?

[Spawn-KING]

They should know Sony did this to stop HACKERS .............
Plain and simple .....With Linux install to a PS3 HACKERS do alot of you know what to it ....

[Luzce]

What about all the non-hackers that paid for a gaming machine which could run Linux?

[commodore64]

BUBBLES for Luzce!

You sir, have hit the nail on the head.
The law exists to protect consumers in this case and those people are exactly the people that need protecting from Sony, in this case.

Sony has sought to protect its bottom line, by discriminating against a minority of ps3 users.

Of course, Sony didn't mind at all that those same users bolstered its coffers with additional ps3 purchases at the time that Linux was being touted as a unique selling point.

Funny then, how this article says gamers are at risk, when in fact, gamers are being protected by the lawsuit.

[Instinct_Gamer]

Then you shouldn't have updated, someone thats a "non-hacker" hacker should know how to read. Sounds like you need to reassess your situation in life, if you want your little Linux so bad then you should not have agreed to update. These were all gifts from Sony, Other OS has nothing to do with gaming. If you use your PS3 in a cluster then why are you piddling around on PSN with it??? You really need to look at your priorities and get a life. Go get a job and buy a proper setup if your needs your Linux so bad. A PS3 slim is 300 bucks, and then you could have used the Phat PS3 for you little Linux.

[Xander756]

Actually it would be a good thing for gamers. It would prevent companies, like Sony, from advertising that their machines do something, then pull the plug on it. It's called bait and switch. You can't say your machine supports an OS, then people buy it because of this, and then they no longer support that OS. It's not as if they just took that functionality out of future models but ripped it right out of the consoles of the people who already bought it for that.

[the-show-stopper]

but if Sony does lose then this will show that user agreements mean nothing and we'll get nothing for free anymore

[Sarick]

nothing is free. there is always a cost. Even though PSN doesn't cost money from a subscription Sony pays for it, also you paid for the PS3 hardware and software to use it.

What is different here though is the product had features that where included some and people paid for them. This was no optional update. Either you updated or your system stopped functioning elsewhere.

So no matter which choice you took you'd be losing features you paid for that wheren't free to begin with.

[rwarner174]

This was never advertised. Not once. Show me an advertisment of the otherOS feature. I don't think its even on the box, but I could be wrong on that one.

[Luzce]

It was definitely touted as one of the features, along with PS2 backwards compatibility, memory card readers, etc.

[Hotel_Moscow]

oh really but was it advertised on the box was their a tv commercial saying it i dont think so i think people are mixing what they read and heard from other people as being from sony

[edgeofblade]

Actually, bait and switch is different. From Wikipedia:

"In retail sales, a bait and switch is a form of fraud in which the party putting forth the fraud lures in customers by advertising a product or service at an unprofitably low price, then reveals to potential customers that the advertised good is not available but that a substitute is."

This is an Implied Warranty situation. Also from Wikipedia:

"The UCC allows sellers to disclaim the implied warranty of merchantability, provided the disclaimer is made conspicuously and the disclaimer explicitly uses the term "merchantability" in the disclaimer.[1] Some states, however, have implemented the UCC such that this can not be disclaimed."

Sony could have EASILY done this, and probably did. But the question will be if this is disallowed in California. And I haven't the time or need to pour over California law for the answer.

[jjesso1993]

Xander756 the qustion who in the world spend ££250-£425 to use os on a ps3 no one there cant be single person in this world that said oh ps3 dose linux lets buy so and can play few 2d games that can play mobile phone people need serious help if thats how they decide to spend there money.

god what world come to sony stop people from stealing theres other partners products by removing bareley funtional os that could not emulate a 3d game people need to get a life if care about so much why cant they just go out get pc install linux on it and do 1000 times more than what you could do on ps3 ? linux base pc would cost about £150 by the way to do about 1000x what was done ps3.

[blair_enigma]

but regarding security updates like in the ps3 via this removal of otherOS, if i compare that to a car, does TOYOTA change the chassis or the door of a vehicle because they think there might be 'hackers' that harm the driver? i havent heard of a car manufacturer changing the specs of the car because its not safe.

like a prius, or that smart car, after getting into an accident and killing the driver, does the car maker CHANGE the specs of the car because of that? NO they dont.

so what im saying is, i know sony has a valid argument but if they change the specs of the ps3, then people will complain to upgrade their cars too. and everything else.

[dizzleK]

those manufacturers can order a recall to fix a defect. the other os backdoor was a defect.

[The Lazy One]

they didn't fix the defect. They removed the feature.

To use the above example, when cars have a problem they recall and return the car in the advertised condition and usually pay a handsome fee as well. In this case, the car manufacturer saw a potential way for people to break in through your door, and replaced your driver side door with a solid steel plate that doesn't open.

[commodore64]

@ ^^^

a perfect analogy.

This is what the lawsuit is about.

[Instinct_Gamer]

They did not remove anything, they denied access to Playstation Network IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE TO USE YOUR PS3 WITH LINUX. You had the CHOICE, PSN is their service they provide for free under their terms of service. People running their PS3s in clusters or as a computer have no need to sign in to PSN or to ever update their firmware... Get a clue buddy.

[Hotel_Moscow]

that analogy is wrong

if you want a reall analogy the only one that works is if apple released a iphone

that charges you for apps

one of the features allows you to install the android os on youre iphone

someone uses that same feature in order to make it so that they dont have to pay for any apps

this hypothetical iphone company made its money not off of the iphone itself but the apps would apple rather shut the feature off through update or recall all 33.5 million phones

besides with some people claiming that their were no hacks out and they should have waited same with the psp no hacks out for it when it started once it got hacked everyone had the cfw my friend even cfw my psp and all he did was use a memory stick and a battery

[jerethdagryphon]

not hackers no but they have and ocntinue to change thengs if its a weakness, faulty wires batteries brakes recalls and reissues are a part of the modern wolrd

[user858621]

does this mean, people who wanted the blades rather then NXE could have sued microsoft??

[Jack Klugman]

blades aren't a feature but nice attempt at distracting sonys problems by trying to bring up xbox.

[fallingdove]

Blades being replaced by NXE isn't much different than Linux being removed. You now can't access either unless you failed to update your firmware.

[Godmars290]

At the very least, given all the crap over DRM, companies attempting to hold onto all rights to a game or product after they've sold it for private use, is that hopefully some regulation will be put in place to remove the free hand they don't have in the matter. Especially considering online interaction.

[Zerodin]

The gaming universe doesn't revolve around those suits you worship.

[PSN-JeRzYzFyNeSt]

lets hope these judges arent Xbox fanboys lol

[dizzleK]

fanboys, this would realistically open up ms to lawsuits over the removal of the blades interface. if i paid for blades but had nxe shoved on me i could sue.

[The Lazy One]

Go ahead and try. M$ gets new lawsuits every month if not every week. Have fun paying their legal fees when you lose.

[ALFAxD_CENTAURO]

Sony is prepared for this cases, they will not loose any case. They knew this was coming.

[dillydadally]

This guy actually does a pretty good job at making his points seem accurate, but it's all propaganda and inaccurate. Courts already make tons of decisions all the time that go against EULAs - anything the judges feel wasn't lawful to be in there, they rule against, and that's the only way Sony will lose is if the judge feels it was unlawful or didn't exactly state that.

Not only that, the author makes it sound like console makers innovateto be nice - which they don't. They innovate to protec their investment - do you think you won't get security updates if Sony loses? Do you think there still won't be innovations to compete with competitors?

On the other hand, what if Sony wins? The result would be far worse for gamers as a console manufacturer could put a feature in their console to bait consumers and take it away after purchase.

The key problem here though is the author fails to see the issue at hand - this isn't just A little feature that they removed that almost no one cares about - this is THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THE CONSOLE for many people - those that use the other os likely bought the ps3 For the purpose of a powerful server and not to play games. So in othewords, this is more online with Sony removing the ability for he Ps3 to play games for us. We would certainly sue.

The stupid thing is although Sony should be required to keep this feature as it was the purpose of purchase for many individuals, they shouldn't be required to keep updating for individuals who want it, so they should just keep the old firmware from a legal standpoint.

[CharlesDCI]

Then they shouldn't of bought it. The primary purpose of the PS3 is to play games and movies. Its not our fault that they are using it for something its not intended for.

I'm also getting sick of people saying Sony baited you with the feature when they never advertised it in the first place. I didn't even know the PS3 came with that feature until I looked at the settings when I was changing them. Im sure lots of PS3 owners found out about the feature the same way I did.

[The Lazy One]

read the lawsuits. They're mostly available online. It's advertised as a personal computer repeatedly by sony. That's why there's a case.

[gypsygib]

Another successful irrational argument by a pseudo-journalist to attract attention.

[corneliuscrust]

posted a link to a good read by a Digg commenter, thought i would share it here.

http://digg.com/playstation...

"The big point is that it would be like buying a Prius hybrid (runs on electricity and gasoline), then one day, for 'security' reasons, Toyota told you you had to pick, right this second, whether your hybrid would run only on gasoline, or only on electricity, but you couldn't have both. For people who wanted a game system and a CELL processor system, Sony really screwed them. If you are upset do something about it. Contact Sony, and your attorney general.

CREDIT goes to Xrobx on Slashdot who posted these in another thread and i wanted to make sure that everyone sees them...

Sony Computer Entertainment Inc.:
"In addition to playing games, watching movies, listening to music, and viewing photos, you can use the PS3 system to run the Linux operating system. By installing the Linux operating system, you can use the PS3 system not only as an entry-level personal computer with hundreds of familiar applications for home and office use, but also as a complete development environment for the Cell Broadband Engine (Cell/B.E.)."
http://www.playstation.com/...
[playstation.com]

http://74.125.113.132/searc... http://www.playstation.com/...

- google's cached page of the above hyperlink from March 30th 2010 which does not say anything about FW 3.21 removing Other OS. I've saved the page in case it goes offline, copy http address into browser as link probably won't work. Or, just search google and get the cached page. - kiyyto..."

-truncated due to size. second half in next comment

[corneliuscrust]

Phil Harrison, February 2007,
President of Sony Computer Entertainment Worldwide Studios 2005-2008:
"One of the most powerful things about the PS3 is the 'Install Other OS' option."
http://kotaku.com/235049/20... [kotaku.com]

Sony Computer Entertainment Inc., 2006-2009:
"The Linux Distributor's Starter Kit provides information, binary and source codes to Linux Distribution developers who wants to make their distro support PS3."
http://www.kernel.org/pub/l... [kernel.org]

Izumi Kawanishi, Sony, May 2006:
"Because we have plans for having Linux on board [the PS3], we also recognize Linux programming activities... Other than game studios tied to official developer licenses, we'd like to see various individuals participate in content creation for the PS3."
http://www.gamasutra.com/ph... [gamasutra.com]

Geoffrey Levand, August 2009,
Principal Software Engineer at Sony Corporation:
"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."
mailing list to PS3 customers using Linux

Phil Harrison, May 2006,
President of Sony Computer Entertainment Worldwide Studios 2005-2008:
"The Playstation 3 is a computer. We do not need the PC."
http://www.spiegel.de/netzw... [spiegel.de]
SONY
Make.Believe... you didn't see that"

appologies if some links dont work, the original post link is at the start of my first post.

[ChickeyCantor]

Exactly, it was promoted as is.
And now its just ripped out.

They even held demonstrations on how Yellow dog works pretty well with it.

[ReBurn]

I guess that sort of takes care of the "Sony never advertised it" argument. Phil Harrison was playing it up all over the place. Perhaps it wasn't "advertised" but it sure was "publicized."

[corneliuscrust]

is that I got disagrees for posting quotations from Sony's own people.

Good lord fankids, get a freakin grip. Realize when Sony is wrong...for ONCE. please. It CAN happen

Even the motherf***in airforce is pissssed

http://www.joystiq.com/2010...

[ChickeyCantor]

I hope sony doesnt win this, cause im not using other OS anyway..N4G tears taste great.

That said,
Why the drama?

[Anon1974]

Otherwise you'd know what the "drama" was about.

Most places that put out software have User Agreements. It allows them the flexibility they need to update, upgrade and change their software on the fly for whatever reason. Without it we'd be stuck with software that never changes, never evolves because if a feature of the software doesn't work properly, get's hacked, etc...the company without the protection of the EULA's wouldn't be able to legally make any changes to the software. If a program is released with a faulty feature that's hacked, tough! You have no right to go in and change that feature.

Each console's makers have the right to change any feature at any time without user consent in their EULA's. If suddenly the courts rule against EULA's it ties their hands from making any changes to these systems without opening themselves up to litigation.

That's what the drama is about. Quite frankly I don't think this is about the Other OS feature at all, and I don't think the courts will rule against Sony in this matter but I believe it's important that gamers are aware of what's a stake. If these people wanted Linux they'd save the lawyer fees and buy a laptop with the money. People launch frivolous lawsuits against corporations all the time hoping to be paid hush money. That's all this is in my opinion, but those trained seals making noise, clapping and clamoring for Sony's downfall haven't stopped to think what effect this would have on the industry.

That's what the article is about.

[working4games]

I have a PS3 and love it, but losing the Other OS option was a bit annoying as I actually planned on using it. Even have a copy of Ubuntu Linux on my laptop HDD long before they decided to remove it as proof. I'd love to see if people accuse me of just downloading Linux just to pretend I was going to use it on my PS3. My point is that it's easy for those that never planned on using that feature or had that feature to dismiss it as no big loss. The early adopters took the biggest risk and investment in buying the PS3, so why should we all be punished because of one hacker? I'm pretty sure the majority of people angry at this feature being removed are early adopters (which I am). As if the PS2 or 360 needed an Other OS feature to enable them to be hacked. Sad truth is it's going to happen one way or another eventually. Sony just attempted to take the easy way out in this case instead of putting any work into preventing this from happening with the feature intact.

[fallingdove]

We all aren't being punished. In fact, the vocal minority are the only ones that wanted or were using linux. And guess what, a large percentage of those individuals were either hackers or wanted to hack their PS3. Granted, all hackers aren't bad, but piracy has destroyed the PSP and I kinda like my launch PS3.

[working4games]

I agree that piracy did more or less destroy the interest of developers for games on the PSP. In the case of the next gen consoles on the other hand, the 360 and Wii have both been hacked and pirated on, but both still are doing quite well. Even the DS is doing well despite hacking. Not all programmers like to hack and probably fewer do than most people think.

[ReBurn]

I would argue that most of the people with Linux on their PS3's were not hackers. Most PS3's with Linux were probably in clustered environments for number crunching. It was on mine because I've been a software engineer for a decade and a half and I like to push the hardware. I had Linux on my PS2 as well.

I was in the vocal minority because Sony took away something I used. I was in the minority, but does that mean I have to give up part of what I loved about my PS3? I have since given up and upgraded the firmware. But I certainly didn't like to have to choose between features I wanted. Sony did this one wrong in my eyes.

[ChickeyCantor]

Lets not forget, future games need the latest updates..
So you were forced on that too.

[GigaGaia]

This article is poinless, because it won't end with a ruling against Sony. Sony basicly can't lose here, they were prepared. Beside, it's their right to remove such features.

In fact, the person not in their rights are the one complaining about it. Even though you bought the console, the software in it doesn,t even belong to you.

[knightoftears]

I really don't see the big deal with Sony protecting their product/software. When the Xbox360 and Wii were hacked nobody did crap for the longest time, now Sony attempts to protect their console from the same fate and it's a problem? Why is it imperative to allow Linux on the system? Last time I checked Sony owns the source code to the PS3 so they can do with it as they please. I can't even come close to believing these people who are suing ONLY bought their PS3 to put Linux on it.

[Shendow]

This person point out that 360 has remove things as well, take that people that cry about PS3 losing OS and how 360 has never lost anything or got anything remove.

Anyways he does have a point that it kind of gives people to sue, but people are going to sue no matter what dumb thing it is about. From being fat from eating BK or McD's or what happen in Kansas.

Getting sue for having junk on your stairs an you fell down the stairs and you broke into the house (The guy that broken in won -_-). Its sad because the lady was only in her 80's an she got sued by someone that broke into her house.

[Gr81]

Please.

[jerethdagryphon]

last post :( stupid 3 bubbles.

anyway

yea.

this isnt about a tiny usefull function
nor is it about licensing of software vs owning it outright

its about the larger picture.

sony loses companys will go one of 3 ways.

everyone will pile into cloud computing where NOTHING is on your system and you rent time on a game

b thell take a step back and not bother with future generations and keep stuff as is

or c which is the least disirable

they stealth it,

load game game update found installing,... congratulations your on new firmware

and the'll sneak that into further eluas

hell noone reads them as
game.co.uk proved by adding a we own your soul unless you opt out at this website...

[nefertis]

Its geohotz fault for all this happening. None of this would have happen if he wasnt trying too go for the fame.

[tiamat5]

If the idiots read the user agreement they signed, Sony has all the rights to do this. I mean seriously do these idiots really think they have a chance? People seem to think that because Sony is not the top system at the moment, they don't have enough money to hire lawyers to grind their sorry @$$es into powder? They will be lucky if Sony even bothers to pay them the cost of the OS or bothers to give them anything at all. You people are playing with fire. Don't do this.

[ReBurn]

User agreements are not the end-all, be-all of protection for service providers, anyway. I've testified in two cased where ToS and ToC came under fire, one of which the company I worked for lost.

These agreements are not valid if they unfairly infringe upon the rights of the consumer. Even when someone reads and agrees it doesn't mean that they give up their rights. They're especially vulnerable to challenge if they change after a contract has been established. Just saying that you have the right to change a contract at any time doesn't automatically give you that right in the eyes of the law. People who used the feature have rights, and the lawsuits will determine the extent of those rights.

I think the author is blowing this a bit out of proportion. This case won't have a ripple effect. At worst Sony will have to provide people a voucher for a greatest hits game or a free PSN download or something trivial that doesn't really cost them much. Any cash that is awarded will be gobbled up by lawyers. But that's only if they lose.

[evilmonkey501]

I think Sony should offer two ps3 types, one for games which run the Sony os and another strictly for supercell computing, which can run any os designed for it.
I cant imagine why this has become such a huge issue. From what Ive read, this doesn't seem to affect a large percentage of people. Sony needs to protect the ps3 from piracy and I'm glad they have.

anyone else having comment posting issues? thos new n4g is being a pain in my arse...lol.

[evilmonkey501]

double post.sorry.

[Enigma_2099]

... not a single person has come forward with proof or even a convincing example of how the removal of the Other OS feature has crippled their systems...

"I use my PS3 as a streaming media center..."[/example]

And somehow now that you can't use Linux, this no longer possible? Explain...

.. and they NEVER DO. They just keep repeating it over and over and over.

Meanwhile, it's already been stated that Linux is used for playing a lot of homebrew and pirated games, and hackers take advantage of this. So what happens? The feature is removed to prevent this exploitation... not to piss off gamers who are NOT PIRATING GAMES... to prevent the exploitation. Sony didn't do this just to make you mad, they're trying to curb piracy... and yet now they're being vilified, and the f***ing hackers are being made into HEROES!!!! Pay for your god d*** games like everybody else, or don't play them!!!

And if Microsoft were in this situation, guess what, I'd support their decision! All of you b****ing about losing the feature, and how unfair it is, and how you think you're entitled to it, guess what... if you didn't PIRATE GAMES AND HACK THE F'N SYSTEM, YOU'D STILL HAVE THAT FEATURE!!! THANK YOUR GODS OF HACKERY FOR RUINING IT FOR YOU!!!

If god has a sense of humor, after they lose the lawsuit, they'll all get hit with a counter-suit.

[SkolarVisari]

Well if they are using Linux on the PS3 to stream files to other machines, just how in the heck are they supposed to be able to do that without Linux since the PS3 doesn't actually support streaming media to other machines. It can only receive streamed data. It's not that hard to figure out. You continuously shouting about hacking and pirating doesn't actually prove anything.

Furthermore Bluray encryption was cracked a long time ago and you didn't see Sony abandon the format. What games for the PS3 were being pirated with Linux? SNES and other ancient console roms occupy a certain gray area due to their age. They are generally items that the original content creators cannot even make money off of anymore. They really are not a consideration for Sony because they don't even have properties that go back that far. Besides emulators like ZSNES and the like would have been known to them long before the PS3 even came out or had Linux implemented on it.

[Enigma_2099]

And it doesn't prove anything EXCEPT... my point.

As for the Blu Ray crack... WHAT has been done with that exactly? Why was the incryption cracked? I'm willing to bet it has something to do with copying games...

Hey, I'm going by info I have read, mostly on Wikipedia... they didn't include a list of every pirated game, so you're out of luck there.

Gray area my a**... I don't care if all you did was SNES emulation of rare games... you still didn't pay for it. Stop pretending you're above the law.

[SkolarVisari]

Hmm I dunno movies and music I own. That is the kind of thing you do with a fileserver you know. Your point doesn't actually exist. The Bluray encryption crack has a lot more to do with movies and the fact that the encryption mechanism requires people to buy specialized hardware in order to actually view Bluray movies at maximum resolution. In spite of the fact that 1080P and higher are entirely unnecessary for achieving such resolutions. Not to mention the fact that you need to have specific software applications for playback on computers that are not necessarily available on your platform of choice.

You really ought to stop pretending that you have any understanding of these legal issues, you only make yourself look more and more ignorant of reality. Emulators like ZSNES etc. are not illegal, nor is it illegal to posses roms provided you own the original. (Then again as I said before in most cases these roms are of things so old that the manufacturers have no reasonable expectation of making a sale on them. Though they are certainly free to invoke their rights should they see fit.)

[Enigma_2099]

... you're dancing around the question. I'm not pretending to anything... I'm waiting for you to answer the question, and you apparently keep refusing to.

[SephireX]

I look at this from an objective standpoint. People bring up the fact that the PS3 has so many added features to well compensate for the removal of the OS feature. That's all very good but you are missing the point of the plaintive argument. When a consumer goes to buy a product, they pay out money in exchange for benefits. The promotion of the PS3 originally implied (maybe) that all benefits the console had at the date of sale would remain intact. Forget new additions because the consumer didn't pay or ask for those new additions (online updates) but the consumer did pay for the Other OS feature. Now if there is a trade-off between online play and the Other OS feature, that means that one of those benefits will not be intact which goes against the console's original promotion. That is the main argument of the plaintiff. Someone who bought the console originally, could have genuinely foreseen that they would be able to use the Other OS feature and the online service forever but they were stripped of this feature without committing any crime. The Judge could then order that Sony bring back the Other OS feature or reimburse anyone who wants to be reimbursed. However, if there was a clear stipulation on buying the console that online play might require console features to be edited or removed in the future, then that information was available to the consumer before buying the console. As such, they have no claim. Though how clear was that stipulation to the consumer? Was this information very hard for the consumer to know? If so, Sony could be held to be in the wrong. Anyway, that's just my opinion on the matter. Personally, I can see an argument for both sides. Though in these circumstances where there was a threat of hacking that could potentially reduce the standard of the online PSN service for PS3 gamers, the move could be held to be fair and in the customer's overall interest. Even though such an issue with the Other OS isn't the plaintiff's problem, the move can be justified and as such, I don't believe that Sony will lose these lawsuits and I certainly don't believe that losing these lawsuits would be too detrimental anyway. So relax and let's just see what happens.

[ACEMANWISE]

I believe the real threat to Sony was solved when they discontinued the old PS3 models. The threat is minimal at best because the new models don't have this capability. So I don't see why Sony felt the need to update discontinued models too.

[Shnazzyone]

But the formatting is crap so i stopped caring. Why would you format your page like that?

[ACEMANWISE]

I think the real problem here is how useless a game console is without the online service. There really is no choice that allows the owner to seperate without rendering their console useless. Who wants that?

I'm well aware of the idea that the games you buy, whether online or on disc, is not owned. It is licensed for your use. However, the problem with the service is not the service itself. Updating is a great idea but how they implemented the technology is not. There should be no reason for a consumer to have to lose everything just because he disagreed with the newest agreement. Your disagreement means you cannot access the service anymore. It doesn't change the fact that you still have the right and the license to play the games you paid for. Yet these licenses are standing behind the online service which makes them even less of a grant for usage than just receiving a license key. The solution?

Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, and any other company needs to stop this abusive software control and stop forcing people to have the service in order to play their games. They need to stop copyright blocking game saves and stop requiring your games to be "activated" by a server. They need to stop putting required firmware updates on game discs and forcing an update to play them. Most of all they need to allow a form of backup that actually backs up ALL data, copyright included.

In a way I'm hoping this creates a huge setback to the industry. There is no reason I have to pay 60+ for a video game and have it useless when the console generation is over. When there is no server to activate your games how will this issue today of having a useless PS3 be any different if they cut the servers 3 years from now. This is a perfect example that needs to be addressed to everyone before they spend thousands of dollars only to find out it's not accessible to them anymore.

[booni3]

i must admit i found the subject of the article to be a gross overstatement. Sony will win. you have to agree to the terms of everything. to rent a car, check into a hotel, sign up for a newsletter or ANY kind of service. These agreements have protected service providers for years and nothing has changed. sony will win.

[hoops]

Moronic lawsuits.

[Garrison]

In order to use the PSN network you have to update and agree to the Agreement. Sony didn't actually go to anyone's house and put a gun on their head to update the damn thing. THE USER has the option of UPDATING or NOT, case closed so stop your crying.

[maxcer]

you totally missed the point of the article. the author thinks these lawsuits will somehow deter future functionality by scaring the console makers into limited updates or no updates at all.

while the real reason behind the killing off of other OS was due to SONY wanting the PS3 to remain a closed system. why on earth would they want another psp type underground creating all these great apps for free when they could control it themselves.

i don't think it will even matter in a few years anyway, you know someone will crack the firmware eventually.

[SkolarVisari]

Isn't it ironic that the PSP seems to be doing well enough for third parties and Sony to continue to make games for it even with the hacks out there for it? Shouldn't that tell people that piracy is really not an issue?

Oh and Garrison if Sony went to your house and put a gun to your head and demanded that you update, you would still have the option to not update...The only problem would be that your option would not be very meaningful to you.

Ps. ToS and EULA's do get invalidated and it does not bring about the apocalypse. see here for just one example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

One more thing. The last time Sony offered an optional update you were not prevented from connecting to the PSN.

[maxcer]

@shadow

I guess so, well enough to continue as #3 in the handheld gaming market behind the DS and iPhone. SONY cares about piracy, and it is an issue for them, wouldn't you be as a proponent of the PSP?

They want control so they can make money off of the thing. the balancing act comes from the lost sales of games and the fact that lots of people buy a PSP for homebrew and emulators.

its the first thing i did when i got my 1.50FW PSP.

[chasegarcia]

Its very unethical what Sony did. I really did not like it one bit. I'll remember this when I buy my next gen console.

[Duo]

I'm siding with the consumer's.

My atari, nintendo, genesis, gameboy didn't get up dates. that's fine, years later I still have everything in the games and system that I paid for years ago.

I used to swear by Sony, now not so much.
Is coffee hot? but since it didn't say so that woman won.

One guy used a program outside of its intended purpose's even after clicking "I agree", the company took him to court and guess what he told the judge? The ToS is too long and no one ever reads it. You know who won that case? The guy that said ToS is too long.

That guy in Europe figured out the RIGHT way to go after the removal of the other OS. Anyone following this has read it at least once. He got money worth what they felt he lost.

So if a guy received money acknowledged by law, in Europe, that Sony did not make their product "be fit for the purpose which the consumer requires them and which was made known to the seller at the time of purchase.” Why are almost all of you painting halo's on Sony?

As I follow this, this is the simplified view of what I see

I paid 600$ for a premium version, Sony removes something add....

No one used it, shut up
Its Geohot's fault, shut up
Buy a new Ps3, shut up
They've added other feature's, shut up
Your not a lawyer, shut up

But not all of you bought the launch model's, not all of you rushed out when Sony said people will get a second job to get one. We're not talking, I paid 250$ for my Moto Droid and my friend buys one today for 150$ and I sue. I have the same 2.1 Droid like he has the SAME 2.1 Droid. You guys mention removing BC, those of you with a slim have less than those of us who who have launch models.

If you bought a slim, how can you comment on this or BC? Your slim didn't have BC or other OS when you bought it from the store, so how can you bring your two cents when we are losing on our 600$ purchase?

Losing credit card info? You think your 46"+ tv can't be stolen? You think internet Fraud just started on the Ps3 with Geohot's hack? You think bank's haven't been broken into and your defense for Sony is they saved my credit card info?

You know those Visa gift cards you buy round Xmas time? Try using those to buy off of PSN than your 10k limit platinum.

what do I think about, well what if Sony loses and we don't get updates to our system any more?
My ps1 didn't get update's
My ps2 didn't get update's
I pay 600 and I now have less than what I started with, you answer is "Oh well". Everyone else doesn't get updates if Sony doesn't win, then "Oh well" to you too.

One person started this, and ruined it for everyone
another person(s) could potentially ruined it for everyone again by your view.

My 60gig will not be updated until all of these law suite's are settled. I lost when they did this update, I lose if Sony wins, but I can assure I WILL NOT be buying a PS4 until after they strip down the premium version

[amigaman]

Amen

[Lilith_Belial]

thanks to that no good Geohot prick, why doesn't he just stick an iPhone up his ass and upload a video of it on Youtube if he's so hungry for attention.

[mookins]

Sony should have left this feature then, so the P3 could get hacked. Then there would be lawsuits about hacked systems.

Yeah, that's a brilliant idea.

F*cking idiots. You need to blame the one who started this hacking BS in the first place.

[maxcer]

firmware hacks are inevitable, other OS was just an easier way to go about it. what they need to do is offer a better alternative to hacked systems. and they have it right now with PSN support.

people have every right to do what ever they want to their systems, hack it, leave it alone, take a shit in the disc drive, whatever.

[keysy420]

show up and protest, this guy is a lame asshole for suing

[PiTCHBLaCK]

If they really did remove the Linux because of a hackers threat I support this.
Some will say, "But some people use Linux on the PS3 right now".
One simple thing, remove it and move on knowing your data is secured.

Also, do you really think someone will sue sony because they removed Linux?
People are just grabbing for money, and now they see a reason to grab for it.

[Hiruu]

SDF is working hard to save their beloved...but some "traitorous" PS3 owners are fighting back.

[r1sh12]

What I dont understand is why sony just tried to patch the hack.
Rather than removing it from the system. It makes sense to try stop the hack.
If sony do lose the court battle only 1 thing will come from this, they will stop making the fat PS3. Just to stop the hacks.
They cannot advertise a feature to then remove it, its like they advertise blu-ray and then remove it for no real reason.

[silvertip83]

this is ridiculous. Why is there lawsuits over this issue??? Sony has the right to change its software and what it offers to the community. Just because some whiny brats are not able to run another OS off the system, they plan on ruining it for everyone. If you want a computer, buy a freaking computer!!!! This is the PS3 its a VIDEO GAME console not anything else.

I say drop the lawsuits and grow a pair cause this is childish.

[likedamaster]

Btw, N4G is dead! Thought I'd remind...

[Captain Tuttle]

The blind corporate worship in this thread is disturbing.

If you update the firmware you lose a feature you paid for (OtherOS)
If you don't update you lose a feature you paid for (ability to play future games that require an updated firmware).

Your console is gimped either way.

[devilhunterx]

While we are at it, let's sue M$ for banning unmodded console too

[PS360_37]

troll

[hiredhelp]

IM GLAD SONY DID THIS. this comming from a 360 owner who had several flashed 360's i admire sony for doing this. with microsoft they not really botherd they just do a update knowing it get round by hackers so they can shut up developers and still sell consoles.

GO SONY!!

[sirchnoslen]

Once again for anyone who has missed what the big deal is because I keep reading that question. Sony removed a highly touted feature from the fat PS3 in order to keep it from getting hacked. The problem with this is that there are some people using this feature for reputable reasons and they are left with either losing a feature that they bought the system for or losing all online connectivity through the XMB and games.

I personally think that Sony is being lazy and screwing over some of their supporters. And, even if the people being screwed over are in the vast minority they still deserve to be protected.

That being said I don't have Linux on my PS3. I haven't modded my Xbox360. Hell I haven't even hacked my Wii. But I've jailbroke the shit outta my IPhone and even without stealing anything, which is the only reason anyone hacks anything apparently, I have a much improved piece of hardware. So I'm not against the people who hack things to make them better like GEOHOT. He helped crack the IPhone and I love the guy for it.

[amigaman]

I have purchased the PS3 the day it came out, knowing that it play PS3 games, blu-ray movies, PS1 and PS2 and LINUX. I new that installing Linux on PS3 was the coolest feature of all. So I payed $500.00 for 20Gig one and upgraded the HD to 160Gigs for another $100. The day I found out that they will remove that feature I got really upset, all the hard work installing Fedora Linux will be lost by crippling my PS3.
In my opinion, the PS3 was not cracked by pirates yet, BECAUSE SONY included LINUX in their console. Just think about it, almost all cool devices were cracked and hacked to run Linux, like phones, cameras, portable gaming devices etc... By including Linux, SONY took away the need for hackers to crack the PS3 to run Linux. So most hackers, who want to run Linux on other devices, were not participating in opening the console. The were happy, to a point (missing RSX support). This move left only people who want to crack the PS3 for illegal involvement.
I'm still waiting for someone to port MAME to CELL processor, not just simple port for PowerPC. The only thing I would like to change from Lawsuit is not the monetary compensation, but reinstating the feature to owners of old PHAT PS3s.
To get through the "crisis" I purchased another used PS3 for $180. I'm not upgrading my first one!!! I got second one, because I like to watch NETFLIX on it, and it was cheaper to get used PS3 the buy new Blu-ray player with Netflix and wireless.
My 2cents

[Kos-Mos]

What is wrong with usa? Tell me please. Tell me where the insanity began.

[PS360_37]

You agree to the EULA then you can't bitch. Deal with it..Get over it...Move on.

[Stevo35]

I think these people just want some compensation for not having the features as advertised on the box, I know I do.
Like if they did an update tomorrow that took away my backwards compatibility on my OG system, that means I have to spend another $150 on a PS2. I'm sorry but the reason I paid $600 for it was because of what it already had, not what was to come (or go)!!!!