Gamers Looking to Sue Sony Over Firmware 3.21

Earlier this week, Sony initiated a firmware update that would remove the option of installing your own operating system on your PS3. With some running Linux on their PS3s, this mandatory firmware update angered that audience, but the reason behind the removal of such a feature was to diminish the potential threat of software piracy on the PS3. This forceful action is not sitting well with consumers and now PS3 owners that have been affected by the firmware are firing back at Sony by issuing complaints to the FCC and the BBB.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
LordMarius3751d ago

lol, before the update there is a message of what the update does and the terms of service, which in both you have to press Agree or cancel.

This is a lost cause

Parapraxis3751d ago

You got it Marius, it was pretty hard to miss.

Anorexorcist3751d ago (Edited 3751d ago )

If they don't approve of Sony making changes to the it's videogame system the PS3, with which they hold all exclusive marketing and service marks to it, why don't they forget about wasting time in litigation and go build their own home videogame console that they can hack and exploit at will without any issue?

"...but the reason behind the removal of such a feature was to diminish the potential threat of software piracy on the PS3. This forceful action is not sitting well with consumers"

You mean those same consumers that don't want to pay Sony and all the third-party developers for their products and instead choose to cheat the market by promoting and participating in piracy?

" PS3 owners that have been affected by the firmware are firing back at Sony by issuing complaints to the FCC and the BBB."

The Federal Communications Commission and the Better Business Bureau I'm sure are not going to give these pathetic complaints a second thought and are going to support Sony's decision to decrease the possibilities of exploitation for it's product.

It takes all kinds of idiots...A woman once even made a formal complaint to the attorney general towards her doctor for him telling her that she was obese and that she needed to lose weight to improve her health. Idiots get offended for the most asinine reasons these days. These idiots will never be taken seriously.

commodore643751d ago (Edited 3751d ago )

I predicted that this would happen...

@ marius

Unfortunately, the disclaimer in the Update doesn't cover the legal matter at hand.

The ps3 fat console was sold with features which were advertised as being a unique selling point, and doubtlessly made the ps3 a more attractive purchase for many gamers, including researchers who used linux/ps3 as a cheap data processor.

The fact that this feature, which was advertised by Sony - and paid - for by consumers, is now being removed is what the lawsuit is about.

The reasons for the removal of the multi OS ability may be valid , but that does not adress the fact that consumers paid for something which has been taken away.

You can harp on about TOU and update disclaimers all you like.
Consumers will be able to argue, in court, that with this update Sony has reduced their ability to take full advantage of the advertised features at point of sale.
Consumers will be able to demonstrate that, install or not, they are left with a reduced function ps3.

Basic consumer laws have been violated and this suit looks like Sony's worst nightmare.
Rightly so, too.

HolyOrangeCows3751d ago

Hey, you hit agree. If you didn't read the details, your loss.

Better a little lawsuit than Ps3 being damned to piracy like the PSP.

crck3751d ago (Edited 3751d ago )

Only the people that upgraded to 3.21 agreed to the new terms of service which isn't legally binding anyway. The people that haven't upgraded haven't agreed to anything. Now if Sony requires the update to play new games or new blu-ray movies like they do on the PSP then aren't they guilty of false advertising(PSP and 360 games required an update but they never took features away)? Unless they forced people to sign a "terms of service" agreement at point of purchase I think they are legally screwed. Because if people update they lose linx. If they don't update then they lose PSN and maybe blu-ray / game functionality. Either way consumers are left with a device that doesn't do what Sony said it would when they bought it.

peowpeow3751d ago

"lol, before the update there is a message of what the update does and the terms of service, which in both you have to press Agree or cancel.

This is a lost cause"

And if the ability to watch blu-ray movies was removed due to potential 'piracy', would you still argue that point?

ArcFatalix3751d ago

Stop annoying people, Sony cant be sued here, they are within their rights.

Neo6043751d ago

dump broke ass who try to score.

JL3751d ago

This is an absolute lost cause. Seriously, what are people getting so worked up over. First off, 99% of people don't even use this feature. Secondly, as it has posed a threat due to hackers, Sony is entitled to protect their product by removing this feature. Much like how you're allowed to kill somebody (even though murder is against the law) if that person is posing a threat to your existence.

The real nail in the coffin? The terms of agreement. These are the very terms of agreement that EVERY Playstation user automatically agreed to by signing up for PSN or just by buying a Playstation. Learn to read things people.

Most importantly, this part here:
"...and may include automatic updates or upgrades which may change your current operating system and could cause loss of data or content, or loss of function or utility."

See that? "Loss of function or utility". They made you aware of it from the very beginning that they could do it. You agreed to it. So nothing legal can be done.

Lionsguard3751d ago (Edited 3751d ago )

"And if the ability to watch blu-ray movies was removed due to potential 'piracy', would you still argue that point? "

LOL Wow man learn your analogies. You CAN'T compare the removal of OtherOS compared to the feature of watching movies. One of the MAIN features of the PS3 is that it was featured as a Blu-Ray movie player, hence why you paid so damn much (up to $600) for one. It was never shoved in your face that the Ps3 was a Linux computer. I'm just gonna go ahead and pull a statistic out of my ass but I'm willing to bet its close and I'm pretty sure 99% of the entire install base never even used OtherOS. The Linux community is tiny itself compared to Windows/Mac users and you think millions out there rushed out to buy a PS3 so they can install Linux? LOL!

Go up to some random PS3 owner and ask them what OtherOS is on the PS3 and it'd be the same as asking them where Sri Lanka is, they wouldn't have a damn clue. Watching Blu-Ray movies, Playing games = MAIN FEATURES, whereas, looking at pictures, listening to music, OtherOS are SUB-FEATURES. They're just in there as icing on the cake. If Sony sees it fit to remove a sub feature because it may potentially affect their asset and profit then they're gonna do it.

Oh and all those researchers, Why would they want to upgrade? they're on their own networks. I bet they haven't upgraded since the first firmware.

WildArmed3751d ago

lol i wouldn't classify them as 'gamers'

RedDragan3751d ago

LOL at some people.

The very first T&Cs you agree to stated Sony retain the right to remove any feature they want.

False advertising? Nope, T&Cs sorted that out... regardless of whether you agreed to the lastest update, because you agree'd when you first created a PSN account.

There is no case.

vhero3751d ago

You cannot sue as they never once advertised otheros as a feature.

ToothWhiteningFairy3751d ago

sony taketh away

gimme your teeth mofo's

andron3750d ago

If they had left the PS3 alone Sony didn't have to make this move.

As gamers we can't have it both ways. Complaining about glitchers and hackers online, and at the same time praising the ones who make it possible is not possible.

Sony had to do this to keep PSN and PS3 functionality from getting compromised. Safe online gaming is really one of the main features I got a PS3, so I'm glad they are taking steps to maintain that...

gaffyh3750d ago

You cannot sue Sony for this, they are within their rights to remove or add features for their console whenever they want. Not to mention the fact that you have to press "Agree" to the terms in order to install it, meaning you pretty much signed a contract saying that you don't care about Linux.

This is an unwinnable case put forward by idiots.

inveni03750d ago

The complaint is valid. The console was purchased with OtherOS as a feature...ALONG WITH PSN. It's not a far stretch to call this a "bait and switch" maneuver. The truth is that Sony is taking an easy solution. There are other ways to solve the potential of piracy.

That being said, the only reason Sony would have made such a move so quickly (there was really no notice about this even being considered), is if they actually found a way to pirate software by using GeoHot's technique.

THAT being said, I think the complaint about OtherOS is stupid. I have a 60GB, and I had Linux installed on it a long time ago, but not any more. In fact, the only reason I'd put Linux on there was because my computer crashed and I needed something until the new parts arrived. After my comp was back up, everything was fine. Besides piracy, OtherOS was virtually useless. Linux is a pain to set up with 3rd party hardware (like wireless keyboards and mice), and it really doesn't have anything useful on it, anyway. Sure, you could do some word processing, but come on...really?

People are mad because they want the option of "backing up" games if it's ever made possible.

XRider3750d ago

I bought my PS3 two and a half years ago for $599 under the assumption and advertised by Sony that I could install another OS. It was a feature advertized along with backwards compatibility which was also removed after purchase. This is like buying a new car and a year later the dealership comes out to your home and removes the tires saying "sorry, we decided to take that feature away from you" without compensation.

Sony will lose this case and it still wont stop the hacking, piracy or other malicious intent. I supported the lawsuit against Microsoft for the RROD and I support this lawsuit aganst Sony. You core Sony fanboys are so freaking blind it's not even funny.

Viper73750d ago (Edited 3750d ago )

//lol, before the update there is a message of what the update does and the terms of service, which in both you have to press Agree or cancel.

This is a lost cause//

Not really, as they will be loosing PSN which is one of the services they paid for when they bough the system.

This somewhat breaks few parts of Eu directive that says

// EU Directive 1999/44/EC:
The goods must
· comply with the description given by the seller and posses the same qualities and characteristics as other similar goods

· be fit for the purpose which the consumer requires them and which was made known to the seller at the time of purchase.

· show the same quality and performance, which are normal in goods of the same type and which consumers can reasonably expect. This will also take into account any public statements made about the specific characteristics of the goods by the producer, seller or in their advertising.//

Now if you cant a) play game or go online and use the promised online features b) use linux on the machine its doesn't really /comply with the description given by the seller and posses the same qualities and characteristics/

Biggest3750d ago

Removing your tires? Really? I'm going out on a very short limb when I say you have no idea what you're saying. Sony said from day one that they can remove or change anything about your PS3. You agreed since the first day. Your bad. Go do something else with your time. I know you won't be a part of the law suit. You're just hear to say random crap. But those that are would be better served buying cans of premium tap water.

raztad3750d ago (Edited 3750d ago )

Sony does not force you to update, neither the update install by itself w/o permission. If you dont want to install the 3.21 firmware and keep OtherOS functionality you are free to do so. More so even if you decide to download the update there is a second notification warning you about the imminent removal, backup your data if needed and then asks you for confirmation. You can say No, and forget about it.

What Sony is doing is banning every one with no 3.21 and greater from the PSN, and they are absolutely right to do that. It's clear someone with Linux in their PS3 could potentially be hacking their system and playing pirated games.

This Lawsuit is a lost cause.

skip2mylou3750d ago

go ahead and sue sony. because sony makes money off of this since sony can counter sue their asses, just throw the Terms of Service contract in their face in court

IdleLeeSiuLung3750d ago (Edited 3750d ago )

Well here is the kicker, if I didn't upgrade the firmware (which I haven't) and I decide I want to buy the latest and greatest game, God of War 4 or Uncharted 3, in order to play it I'm forced to upgrade.

Now will it say on the packaging that I'm required to upgrade my firmware and give up my rights to use the "Other OS" feature? It pretty damn clear that PS3 games are to be played on the PS3 console right? Isn't that false advertising to advertise that my PS3 can play all PS3 games?

I predicted this will happen and I hope the consumer win, because next thing I know all the console manufacturers start removing features to fit their own agenda.

I really think Sony has shot themselves in the foot, as you can see the massive 6000 comments on the PS3 blog about this.

They are already known as the one console manufacturer that removes features and now they are making it worse with bad PR for something minuscule. Yes, minuscule because the threat of piracy is non-existent.

Microsoft is dealing with piracy and is far the much easier console to pirate thanks due to the cheap availability of DVD burners and dual layer discs. Heck, just jtag it and you bypass all of it.

Besides, what if Nintendo disabled your cartridge slot on the Nintendo DS since the R4 is a huge piracy problem?

princejb1343750d ago

is there console they can do whatever they want to it

Anon19743750d ago

So hackers want to pirate games and steal your credit card info, Sony moves to block this and people are going to sue? Whatever.

First off - no one is holding a gun to your head forcing you to update. Keep the old firmware and play on Linux all you want. Just don't expect to be able to partake in anymore updates. Which is more important to you?

Second - Read the terms. You own the system but you don't own the software. Sony can make whatever changes they need to that software.

Thirdly - Look at all the features Sony has added to the system. From Dolby TrueHD support to upscaling, from Divx and Xvid playback to Home - Sony has added dozens of features your PS3 didn't originally have, and now they're removing one widely unused features to protect their system and consumers from criminals.

Run Linux on your PC if you want Linux that bad. I, for one, am thankful that Sony is acting responsibly here and protecting it's consumers from people who have no respect for you, Sony or the hard working people who make the games we all love to play.

What choice did Sony have? Imagine you have a basement window, and thieves keep trying to break into the basement window to ROB YOU. You fix up the window, you put bars on it but they just keep getting in. Sony's tried to fix this issue before, but the hackers just keep trying to get in. Eventually you have to just board up the window to keep them out. Now, who's fault was that, the builder who thought you might like to have some light in the basement or the thieves who keep breaking in through the window in an attempt to steal from you?

Anyone who thinks this is Sony's fault and not direct the fault of the thieves ruining this for everyone needs to have their heads examined.

jmare3750d ago

Are you really that stupid or has your fanboyism completely eaten your brain? Those theoretical games would play on the PS3 after you updated your firmware. How is that false advertising?

Biggest3750d ago

He lost his brain to fanboyism a long time ago. He likes to pretend that he has a PS3 to make it seem better. You can Google everything about this issue and issues like it. You will find out just how silly the "consumers" are. As I said before. . . I hope their plight makes it to an actual court. I also hope they have lawyers good enough to keep it in court for years. I hope that when they lose, the lawyers take every penny those "consumers" have access to. But it won't make it that far. And that makes me sad.

jadenkorri3750d ago

its not our fault some jerk off is hacking Sony's console. Granted I didn't use Linux on my ps3 as I have a computer, why would I need to use that feature, but what if that jerk off hacks his way through some glitch in the backward compatibility of the ps3, and then another update we have to agree with, Sony is forcing you to do an update you don't want, and if you don't you can't play online, let alone some games that check trophy information as soon as you start, guess what, those prob won't work considering the last issue with feb 28/29th. This update may not have affect most users, but what are you going to do when Sony does take away backward compatibility or something you use alot.

jakethemuss3750d ago

Making them buy their overpriced add-ons.

jakethemuss3750d ago (Edited 3750d ago )

of their services, forcing their customers to upgrade.

EDIT: Man half you guys are dense. If theirs an exploit in part of sony's firmware apps they will fix it. The fact is they can't fix updates for exploits in linux. Thats why it was removed.

Persistantthug3750d ago

I hereby approve of this potential lawsuit.

I'm in.

commodore643750d ago

Yep, this lawsuit will stick.

I have perused the TOU and I have looked at the consumer laws.
Sony has no defence.

Some are arguing that SOny is merely reacting to a security threat, by removing the OS. Unfortunately this holds no water.

The security concern should be addressed by SOny via software security updates while retaining the features of the original sale.

This will be very interesting!
Lawyers will be swarming in no time.

Electricear3750d ago

I agree that if you refused to accept the new update and every thing worked the way it has in the past with the exception that you were unable to use anything new that comes out, then they would be ok; however, this is not the case. Games like Little Big Planet which functioned fine prior to this patch loose functionality if you do not wish to "downgrade" with this patch. People payed good money for the console and the games, and are now faced with an either or situation. Either I can have my Linux, or I can have my old games, but now I can not have both. That is the problem, because they have removed functionality of peoples systems either way, thus people are not getting what they payed for, and Sony has violated their rights with out their consent and with out them doing anything illegal.

Do I personally think this will go anywhere? Probably not because Sony has enough lawyers to bury this in the courts until the next generation of consoles come out, at which point they may be forced to either re-enable the feature (not a huge loss if there is a new console) or pay a fee to consumers who's rights they violated (you might get a check for $35 if you're lucky). The question one has to ask them selves at the moment is whats more important to each individual. Using the system as a Linux box, and potentially waiting for a positive outcome or playing games. That decision is going to be up to each individual. My sympathy goes out to anyone else who wrote apps for their ps3 or did anything serious with their ps3's in addition to using it as a gaming console.

phalanx_mark3750d ago

with the mountain of ps3 linux users out there sony must be trembling in their boots.

Serg3750d ago


No, this will not be interesting, it will be boring, if this case even makes it inside a court room the judge will swing his hammer and everything is over.

I would like to make a suggestion to you, never go to lawschool, just a waste of time. Although I doubt that you are even remotely qualified to even apply to one.

When you signed up for PSN you waved the right to initiate legal steps against Sony in any matter regarding the functionality of the PS3.

The thing I don't get is, why is everybody acting like it's the end of the world? OtherOS feature removed, big deal. Seriously I bet most of the people running their mouth can't even spell Linux, probably don't even own a PS3. I use Linux on my PC and I could care less for the OtherOS feature.

Microsoft Xbox 3603750d ago

Wow the xbox fanboys have the worst analogies ever.

Here is what IdleLeeSuingLung said:

"Besides, what if Nintendo disabled your cartridge slot on the Nintendo DS since the R4 is a huge piracy problem?"

Simply moronic. Disabling the cartridge of a DS is like disabling the entire device. This isn't the same case with OtherOS. You can still play ALL your games even with OtherOS out the window.

It's simple, these 360 fanboys are only in here for the sake of taking down Sony.

SiLeNt KNighT3750d ago

It's a simple cut and dry case. Sony can and will be sued unless they provide customers with a suitable alternative. However 'suitable' is left to interpritation. Terms and conditions are for the firmware, networking and USE of software. U can't put limitations on what was already purchased and provided as a feature, regardless of the agree button you push. Even if the most recent terms were accepted it was mandatory to update to play online so to use your ps3 as it was intended when it was purchased you had to update. Who is anybody to say this feature is any less useful as BC or using the psn?? U can't say 'nobody' uses it so it's ok. Legally in the state of California this is a violation of consumers rights. Just because "Sony made it so they can do why they want" or "u clicked accept" doesn't mean Sony can take away features you paid for when u purchased your product. There's so many uneducated statements trying to be passed off as fact. People should become a lawyer or seek legal advice before they attempt to give it. Although somebody can do a search on google for legal matters, it has no relevance if u really don't know what your talking about.

skip2mylou3750d ago

read and weep idiots that want to sue Sony.

From time to time, it may become necessary for SCEA to provide certain content or services to you to ensure that PSN, content or services offered through PSN, your PlayStation®3 computer entertainment system, the PSP® (PlayStation®Portable) system or other SCEA-authorized hardware is functioning properly in accordance with SCEA guidelines. Some content or services may be provided automatically without notice when you sign into PSN. Such content or service may include automatic updates or upgrades which may change your current operating system, cause a loss of data or content or cause a loss of functionalities or utilities. Such upgrades or updates may be provided for system software for your PlayStation®3 computer entertainment system, the PSP® (PlayStation®Portable) system, or other SCEA-authorized hardware. Access or use to any system software is subject to terms and conditions of a separate end user license agreement found at You authorize SCEA to provide such content and services and agree that SCEA shall not be liable for any damages arising from provision of such content or services or maintenance services. It is recommended that you regularly back up any data located on the hard disk that is of a type that can be backed up.

The Lazy One3750d ago

Have any of you ever tried law suits where contracts are in question? Sony is well within their stated rights, but it's more than legal to argue that the contract/terms of use aren't legal to begin with, which would nullify the contract.

The biggest argument they have is that sony is removing some features that have no connection to these security concerns if you don't update. For example, removing support for new PS3 games and Blu-Ray disks is completely bull. Removing support for PSN on non-updated systems would be completely within sony's rights though.

My aunt just did this against a company that had an infinite non-competition clause in their terms of use on a software product she used for a year.

I'd also wonder what happens with people who don't have PS3s connected to the internet. They made a sizable investment and won't be able to upgrade their PS3s making them a $600 brick.

Therealspy033750d ago

any reason to sue these days.

IdleLeeSiuLung3750d ago

Are you really that stupid? Did you even read what I said?

I said, if you choose NOT to update the PS3 the games won't work. Yet, I'm practically forced to upgrade to play the latest games. Now does it say on the game packaging that by using this game that I'm giving up features on this console? There is a warning on the package that clearly states, online experience might vary which is not something Sony can control... What does that tell you?

It's pretty clear Sony is removing a feature for no real good reason blaming it on the non-existant "security" issue. Are you really going to defend that? Smells like fanboyism to me.

Even if you cite piracy (which is non-existant and very unlikely to happen) as the reason, there are plenty of consoles that survived piracy and thrives. Furthermore Sony can close that loophole after the fact and it is only limited to the earlier consoles. Heck, right now both Xbox 360 and Wii survives just fine with piracy affecting them.

It is a non-issue, but Sony chose to take away from their customers instead.

mastiffchild3750d ago

Idle-I don't care if you think Wii and 360 do fine WITH piracy, they shouldn't have to as it's theft. Any moves to prevent theft should be applauded and fact is hardly anyone bothered with the other OS anyway. Before this happened most non Sony gamers ridiculed the feature as pointless but suddenly it's as important in some people's minds as the bloody BR drive!

Sony make far more games for their own platform than either MS or Nintendo so, tell me, how do they NOT stand to lose a great deal more from piracy should it become an issue on the PS3? As such the hack was a direct threat to Sony's business model and one fresh in their mind from the way the PSP was killed for developers by piracy and CFW.

Hardly anyone used the feature because it didn't run perfectly and, being frank, was a bit of a pain to get running to start with. Now, I think it's a shame that those people using it have to change but they shouldn't blame Sony(and I'm no industry apologist, not for anyone-we gamers are always getting shafted) but Geohot. I don't believe, either, for a minute, that he never intended CFW and ultimately to enable piracy from the start(whatever he says) as that's ALWAYS the route these things take. The Slim never had the feature to begin with, few fat owners used it but now it's not there it's important enough to cry to your brief over? Gimme a break!

They have the right to defend their business and remove things as and when they like for their system. Nobody bought their PS3 because it could run Linux. Nobody. It was just something that a tiny minority of PS3 owners found some convenience in and no more. Given Sony have covered themselves both before and after the fact I also fail to see any legal loophole left uncovered but the fact is anyone suing over this might as well wave a banner saying they support piracy. Piracy is a big drain on gaming and steps to halt the greed and selfishness of those perpetuating it should be supported even if they're a little hard to bear.

Microsoft Xbox 3603750d ago (Edited 3750d ago )

IdleLeeSuingLung said:

"It's pretty clear Sony is removing a feature for no real good reason blaming it on the non-existant "security" issue. Are you really going to defend that? Smells like fanboyism to me."

Here he goes again, spreading his ignorant 2 cents on here. Non existent security issue? Have you been living under a rock recently? Hackers have successfully dumped LV2 GameOS. Is that not a security compromise? This is where reverse engineering starts and exploits start to appear. If you ask me, it's a serious threat not only to piracy but cheating on PSN as well. Let me say this loud and clear, if you can run unsigned code, there will be cheaters. Piracy I don't care about, but a level playing field when I play online is important to me. To make matters worse, the trophy system becomes useless as well since we will be able to use unlimited ammo, health, and such for offline games. Do you want to cripple PSN over OtherOS?

Now you say it doesn't effect the Wii? Please dude, haven't you heard of Ocarina? It's a cheat program much like GameShark but totally stealth and undetectable. Go play some Mario Kart Wii online for example. There is a 50% chance you'll run into a cheater. Not glitchers, but real deal hex/code altering cheaters. Wii online is dead to me because of this.

Anon19743750d ago (Edited 3750d ago )

I can't see any way in hell this lawsuit will hold any water. By contrast, Microsoft unleashed a faulty console that they knew was faulty on an unsuspecting market, and then lied about it for well over a year without fixing the problem, sending people refurbished consoles that also died on them. And that's not even touching the disk scratching units which they once again tried to cover up.

So far there hasn't been a successful lawsuit against Microsoft for these blatant transgressions against consumers. If lawyers can't get anything to stick on Microsoft when it's this cut and dry, what are the odds that a lawsuit will stick against Sony when they're simply patching up a security concern, they're fully in their right as outlined by the Terms of Service agreement and 99.5% of PS3 owners really don't care because they bought their consoles to play games and watch movies?

Nothing will come of this. It's just websites making noise about nothing. I can see this court case now.
Judge: "So, let's pretend for a second Sony doesn't reserve the right to update the PS3's software at anytime and consumers aren't notified of this in the agreement they accept when they play their PS3's, were you forced to download the update disabling the Other OS option?"
Lawyer: "Well no, but..."
Judge: "Well don't download the update then. Are you stupid? Thanks for wasting the court's time, numbnuts."

IdleLeeSiuLung3749d ago

Are you for real?

Objecting to a removal of a feature has nothing to do with supporting piracy. If you look back at my comment history you will find that I hate pirates as I'm a software developer myself. Nobody is blaming Sony for protecting their business. However, when in attempt to protect a business from a NON-EXISTANT threat hurts me as a legitimate consumer I will speak up.

When I bought my machine it was implicitly understood that I could:

a) install Linux on it

b) play all future PS3 games released

Now I'm forced to pick one or the other. What if Nintendo decided piracy was a problem with the Zelda: Twilight Princess game (this was one of the earlier methods to mod a Wii) and removed your ability to play it? Would you be upset?

What if MS like Ubisoft decided that since piracy is an issue so now we are requiring all games to be connected to the internet? They are now taking away your ability to play games without an internet connectivity? Would that piss you off?

I don't care, if it only affects 0.0001% of the people as it is Sony's issue to protect their business from pirates and that shouldn't affect me after I purchased their console. To NOT stand against this is to stand for cheating your consumers plain and simple because they are not upholding their side of the bargain.

If it was a service I could choose to continue to use a service or not, but this product that I own. I hope they get sued so they will reverse their stance and set a precedence that stepping on your consumers is NOT fine in the name of protecting a non-existent threat!

It was understood that those features was available when I purchased my console and now it is no longer, no matter how you spin it or how many people actually use it!

inveni03749d ago (Edited 3749d ago )

"Not really, as they will be loosing PSN which is one of the services they paid for when they bough the system. "

Actually...PSN is free. I'm sure you know that, but if you DID pay're stupid.

I imagine that Sony's argument in this case will be this: "The user could have kept OtherOS by not installing the new firmware."

Your argument would be: "But then I can't use PSN...and it was said that I could use it when I bought it."

And Sony would say: "Did you use it?"

You'd say: "Yes. And I'd like to keep using it."

And Sony would say: "As you know, your console is no longer supported. It's not under warranty, and it's not in production. Likewise, the PSN service that was available when you purchased your console is no longer available (like many online services that are now gone, even though you paid for the game (see City of's a ghost town now). We'd be happy to let you use your dated hardware on PSN, but you'll have to upgrade its software...otherwise it is not compatible."

And you'd say: "That's such a crock. You removed services from my console."

And Sony would say: "You didn't file a lawsuit when we ADDED things to your console. Would you prefer we replace your firmware with v1.0?"

And you'd say: "You took away backwards compatibility, too!"

And they'd say: "What? No we didn't. That's still available on your dated system."

And you'd say: "Oh...well, I heard that you took it I assumed.......YOU'RE CHANGING THE SUBJECT!"

And Sony would say: "No...we're not. The subject is that the firmware upgrade is optional. PSN is a free service. You didn't pay for it. We've done nothing wrong. Ask your lawyer...he'll tell you."

And you'd say: "[lawyer's name], is this true?"

And he'd say: "Yeah, it's true... That's why I had you pay me up front."

The Lazy One3749d ago

The lawyer would probably actually say something like, "Man we are going to make so much money it's stupid..."

You guys can really say sony's in the right all you want. The fact of the matter is that even though it might only affect 1% of the PS3 users, those users have every right to sue. They are losing an advertised feature one way or another. That is totally illegal regardless of what crappy contract/EULA/TOS you agree to. Even moreso considering that they are practically forcing you to upgrade less you lose other more important advertised features.


+ Show (45) more repliesLast reply 3749d ago
ClownBelt3751d ago

Oh goodness...

I wonder how this will turn out. Lmao

Myze3751d ago

"Morons overreacting. News at 11."

Nitrowolf23751d ago (Edited 3751d ago )

"Without limitation, services may include the provision of the latest update or download of new release that may include security patches, and new or revised settings and features which may prevent access to pirated games, or use of unauthorized hardware or software in connection with the PS3TM system."

(if i am reading this right)
So technicaly they agreed to this, and Sony claimed that the removal was for security reason, so they wanted to patch it up by removing the feature.

Also they agreed to Download it and Sony told what it does before you accept to download.

DrWan3751d ago (Edited 3751d ago )

Sony wasn't even being sneaky about it, announced it a week before, and had it on the big print with the update what would happen if you update, and what would happen if you do not update.

The Coffee is hot, don't touch it.

Hacker submerges hand into the coffee and then gets burn.

Hacker sues Coffee for hot coffee.

Coffee sues Hacker for being a dumb ass.

CimmerianDrake3751d ago

Hey, don't be so quick there. Remember, the U.S. is the country where a woman successfully sued McDonald's for millions because she was a dumb twit and didn't realize that, hey, coffee is hot. She won her case because the cup didn't say that the coffee was hot. Now, you and I who have common sense are facepalming when we hear things like that, and obviously she did know that coffee was hot. But, the point is that she sued McDonald's and won, so yeah. Some people will sue for the stupidest reasons.

ReservoirDog3163751d ago

I love when people use that amusing anecdote. I looked that up one time because it just looked too stupid to believe. But, then reading closer, the truth emerges.

The coffee she ordered was unbelievably hot. So hot that when she accidentally spilled it on herself, she got 2nd degree burns I believe. Now I don't know about you, but that sounds justifiable when put in that light. Right? Right.

On topic, if you want to keep linux, don't update. If you wanna play online, you're required to have the latest firmware update. The two cancel each other out and there's no way to argue with a legal contract.

Just face it. There's no reason to fight for something that a) you would never use and b) wasn't even worth using from a gamer's perspective.

Shadowstar3750d ago

Hm. No. If you want a coffee analogy...

The coffee is lukewarm, don't worry about it. Consumer puts hand in coffee because... consumer likes coffeehands, I dunno. Coffee cup can be refilled.

New coffee comes out that is hot. Those who bought the lukewarm coffee say, "we like our lukewarm coffee because our hands don't get burned", seller says, don't worry, you bought your lukewarm coffee, you can keep putting your hand in there.

Jerk figures out a vulnerability in the coffee making process.

Consumer is told that they can only drink hot coffee now. Seller offers to reheat it, but if the coffee is not heated, puts a magical lid on it so that the consumer can only drink old coffee by him/herself. Consumer now has to choose between being able to put their hand in the coffee and drinking the coffee, and getting some new coffee.

Coffeehands consumer sues Coffeemaker because either way, they are losing a feature they paid for.

How will Coffeemaker sue the consumer? Coffeehands is a third party victim of either Coffeemaker or the Jerk, depending on your point of view.

Biggest3750d ago

Wow. Very silly coffee analogy. How about this one.

Seller says here is a product. This is what it has. These are the rules. Consumer like the product. Consumer says they understand the rules. Consumer consumes. Seller says the product needs to be modified in accordance with the rules already established. Consumer says OMG EYE HAYT U! Consumer decides to take the issue to court. Consumer loses money.

I hope that anyone that decides to seriously try a law suit find a lawyer good enough to get the process into an actual court. That way the moron that suits loses more time and money. But unfortunately for my enjoyment, it won't make it past a complaint.

ReservoirDog3163750d ago


This regularly rolled-out story is often used by people complaining about frivolous lawsuits in America. It goes, a woman buys a coffee at McDonalds, the lid comes off, it spills all over her and she sues for $2.9m v and wins.

The facts: Actually, the story is kind of true. The woman did sue, but only after she first tried to settle for $10,000. She probably deserved that, since the burns from the coffee actually required skin grafts to correct, forcing her to spend weeks in hospital. With that in mind, a ten grand settlement doesn’t seem so frivolous at all, but McDonald’s refused her request and forced her to seek restitution in court. Once there, the judge awarded her damages of $2.9 million, which was later reduced upon appeal to $480,000. In the end, the woman received even less than that, accepting a settlement offered by the company as being a fair compromise. The warning found on coffee cups is McDonald’s way of avoiding a future screw-up of this nature."


Nice to know the full story I guess...

Shadowstar3750d ago (Edited 3750d ago )

I agree that the coffee thing is stupid, but... how far does that go?

Let's say Geohot figures out a way to break the console via Bluray playback. Sony says, "disc based games and movies are now a security risk, so all future games must be purchased through PSN and we will disable your BR playback with the next update (don't worry, you can keep BR playing as long as you don't want new games or to play online)," is that ok? I don't think so, but by your argument, I don't see how that would be any different.

Which features are okay to take out, and is that exclusively determined by Sony? Can they remove wireless networking? How about backwards compatibility? Can they make the decision to stop allowing older PS3s to play new games, and the consumer has no recourse? That's a ridiculous argument. I don't like the precedent, so I really hope that if these guys sue, they win.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 3750d ago
Wardog13683751d ago

I'd like to know the percentage of people who had another OS on their Ps3 on the first place. It ran really slow so I'm not sure why you'd want one anyway. Nothing to complain about here.