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.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
sid4gamerfreak2965d ago

being a little optimistic are we?

Anon19742965d ago (Edited 2965d ago )

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.

-Alpha2965d ago (Edited 2965d ago )

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


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

Nike2965d ago (Edited 2965d ago )

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").

Persistantthug2965d ago

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

*points down*

Darkstorn2965d ago

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.

Anon19742965d ago

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?

drdistracto7072965d ago

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?

randomwiz2965d ago

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.

Lich1202965d ago

@ 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.

edgeofblade2964d ago

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.

WikusVanDeMerwe2964d ago (Edited 2964d ago )

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.

Christopher2964d ago

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.

FarEastOrient2964d ago

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.

jf3sh132964d ago

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 Tuttle2964d ago (Edited 2964d ago )

A User Aggreement does not supercede the 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 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.

KozmoOchez2964d ago

Sony BMG =/= Sony Computer Entertainment

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

Christopher2964d ago (Edited 2964d ago )

***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 Tuttle2964d ago

Interesting. Thanks cgoodno

Perkel2964d ago (Edited 2964d ago )

@ 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_Kojima2964d ago

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.

rockleex2964d ago (Edited 2964d ago )

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.

CimmerianDrake2964d ago

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.

+ Show (18) more repliesLast reply 2964d ago
Megaton2965d ago

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-stopper2965d ago

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

Darkstorn2965d ago

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

Persistantthug2965d ago

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.

CharlesDCI2965d ago (Edited 2965d ago )

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_Shadow2965d ago (Edited 2965d ago )

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.

[email protected] 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".

Megaton2965d ago (Edited 2965d ago )

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.

Therealspy032965d ago

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.

MetalFreakMike2964d ago (Edited 2964d ago )

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.

jerethdagryphon2964d ago

@ 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

DaTruth2964d ago (Edited 2964d ago )

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.

MysticStrummer2964d ago

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.

zag2964d ago

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.

+ Show (9) more repliesLast reply 2964d ago
beavis4play2965d ago

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.

Luzce2965d ago

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.

facelike2964d ago

"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.

ikkeweer2964d ago (Edited 2964d ago )

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 Tretton2964d ago

"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.

mastiffchild2964d ago

@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 P2964d ago

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.

mindedone2964d ago

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

AAACE52964d ago

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!

commodore642964d ago (Edited 2964d ago )

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?


Instinct_Gamer2964d ago

**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.

LoVeRSaMa2964d ago

'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?'

It was removed in 3.21 the latest update is 3.30

MEsoJD2964d ago

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.

UltraNova2964d ago

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..

JsonHenry2964d ago

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.

Alvadr2964d ago

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_null2963d ago

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.

+ Show (13) more repliesLast reply 2963d ago
THC CELL2965d ago

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

8thnightvolley2964d ago

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.

Lucreto2965d ago (Edited 2965d ago )

Trophy support,
ingame music,
ingame XMB,
Video store,
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.

UnwanteDreamz2965d ago

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

Lucreto2965d ago

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

ABizzel12965d ago

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_Moscow2965d ago

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

sajj3162965d ago

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?

Lucreto2965d ago

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-stopper2965d ago

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

Montrealien2964d ago

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.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 2964d ago
Gamer_892965d ago

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