Sony refuses to sanction PS3 refunds

Sony says that it has no intention of reimbursing retailers if they offer fat PS3 users partial refunds because of the removal of the Install Other OS function.

Last week, the first PS3 user successfully secured a partial refund from Amazon UK as compensation for the removal of the ability to run Linux on the console.

The punter quoted European law in order to persuade the online retailer that the goods he had bought in good faith were no longer fit for purpose because of the enforcement of firmware update 3.21, which meant that users who chose to keep the Other OS functionality would lose the ability to play the latest games or connect to the PlayStation Network.

The story is too old to be commented.
LordMarius3105d ago

"The provision in the Sale of Goods Act which requires an item to be fit for a purpose made known by the consumer to the retailer prior to purchase and confirmed by the retailer applies only to the contract between the retailer and the consumer"

well that ends that

Joule3105d ago

Why would anyone want a refund for a ps3. Its a great f*cking console with great games.

Noctis Aftermath3105d ago (Edited 3105d ago )

I can understand why they won't reimburse retailers, it would just lose Sony money.

What i can't understand is why Sony won't refund me my $4.25 i spent on a Valkyria Chronicles game pack that won't work with my US version of the game, they try to get away with it because it's in the terms of service, but how is that fair? if they just mentioned it was incompatible with versions outside of PAL regions when i was looking to purchase it then i wouldn't have downloaded it.

-Alpha3105d ago

What does VC have to do with the removal of OS? Because if that affected a purchase of DLC then that wouldn't be fair to you and you'd have a good case.

PirateThom3105d ago

Why on earth did you buy DLC for a game from another region?

Noctis Aftermath3105d ago (Edited 3105d ago )

It doesn't have anything to do with the OtherOS, but since it was talking about refunds i just felt like venting some frustration after just having a phone conversation with a woman who kept saying "i know what your saying but it's in the ToS".

I just can't comprehend why they would p1ss off a customer over $4.25 that i would have to spend on the PSN anyway.

Extremely disappointed in sonys customer support.

@piratetom: that is because i was unaware that the DLC wouldn't work on the different US version, seeing how the PS3 is region free i guess i expected the DLC to be region free aswell.

@below: no i didn't lie about my address.

insomnium3105d ago (Edited 3105d ago )

Did you lie about your address?

I payed 699 euros for my PS3. If i were to get 20% back it would be 139,8 euros. That's almost $200. Am I going to try and get it back? Don't know. Sony won't be paying the bill so should I care about one of the biggest retail chains in Finland?

I'm going to have to seriously think about this. That's like 3 and a half games right there.....

Jose Mourinho3105d ago

It's up to retailer to cover refunds, isn't it the same in the US?

madao3105d ago


I think it has more to do with they have no way to verify that you don't have a PAL version of the game and choose not to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Noctis Aftermath3105d ago

@madao: your probably right, though i'm still left with alot of dissatisfaction and disappointment towards sonys customer service.

Lightsaber3105d ago (Edited 3105d ago )

well looks like sony will be getting sued by both the customers and the retailers now

PirateThom your of course wrong and blinded by your idiotic fanboyism. Just cause I know other idiots will bring this up those "terms and conditions" are not binding in the slightest. For one probably 75% of people that own ps3 cant even legally enter any kind of legal agreement

PirateThom3105d ago (Edited 3105d ago )

Actually, they can't get sued by anyone.

Retailers can't sue them because the agreement that Amazon used here only affects retailers, it was their choice to make the refund. Sony have no say in Amazon's business practises and also have no reason to reimburse Amazon for this reason.

Consumers can't sue them because it's clearly stated in the terms and conditions that they can make changes like this.

As lame or unfair as you think it is, Sony have lawyers, if there was anything they could be sued for, it wouldn't have happened.

The Lazy One3104d ago

They can still get sued. Almost every TOS wouldn't actually hold up in a court of law if it were brought into question. Half of them are completely unreasonable and can be argued against on a multitude of points.

In this case, the fact that you have to agree to them in order to not lose major features of your console could be argued as unreasonable. The legality of reserving the right to remove any feature is also suspect and probably wouldn't hold up in court.

The gist of it is that just because people agree to something doesn't mean they won't have a case against it in court.

PirateThom3104d ago

That's the thing though, you don't have to agree to anything.

You can still run Linux but you lose access to PSN, which is where terms and conditions of use DO matter. You choose not to download the firmware, you reject the terms of the PSN which, as a closed network, Sony do have say over.

Sony aren't breaking into people's houses and stealing their Linux capabilities.

jakethemuss3104d ago

some of which were for no reason. Are they expected to refund all these customers? It was estimated by a blog that those who use linux on ps3 to be at about 0.6%, DIRECTLY (as in actually using other OS) affecting less than a million ps3 owners. Why is fallout from this so much more than MS's removal of the XBL service from a million of their customers (not to mention XBL is a much larger function).

SWORDF1SH3104d ago

If you actually read the dlc info it tell you a code (that relates to the code on the spine of the ps3 game box) of which games the dlc is compatable with.

Not sonys fault.

IdleLeeSiuLung3104d ago

So let me get this straight, Sony removes a feature. Retailers have to re-reimburse their customers at their expense and Sony says F*** u to the retailers just like they did their customers.

Nobody wins with a feature removal, except *maybe* Sony. It seems to me that Sony should reimburse their loyal customers....

SWORDF1SH3104d ago

lets be honest.

Who would take the features snd improvements that Sony have added over the OS support.
Video store.
Netflicks US
I player UK
Custom playlists.
Background DL's
Greatly improved PS Store
Better Folding at Home with news.
Text Chat.
Extended friend list.
Better inernet browser support.
Dynamic themes.

And get this. Theres a lot more significant features to be added. Some free like the vast majority of my list. and some Premium.

And people say Sony are [email protected] for taking away Linux from the small proportion of ps2 install base to keep their system away from piracy.

Get over it and enjoy the better features that sony have added and will continue to add.

DaTruth3104d ago

Sony is like that! Do you know how much trouble it was for me to get the PSP version of District 9 off the Bluray, because the Canadian PSN store wouldn't recognize my code.

A lot harder than just downloading it online and converting it!

inveni03104d ago

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: PSN is free. No one has ever paid for it. It's not included in the cost of your console (as I had a PSN account before I had a PS3), and it's services aren't restricted to the PS3. And, as for playing future games, the games will tell you if you need a connection to PSN to play them.

I admit, it kinda sucks that there are loopholes like that. OtherOS is a pretty tiny deal compared to what Sony COULD do and get away with. If they ever try to take something serious away--like the ability to stream video or music--then I would definitely throw a fit, because that's precisely why I bought a second PS3 in the first place.

The Lazy One3104d ago

are you daft? that's exactly what I said was arguable.

If someone broke into your house and made you sign a contract with a gun to your head would you say, "Well it's not his fault I got shot in the head... I could have just signed the contract."

ThanatosDMC3104d ago

Well, it's not really Sony's fault if you bought a DLC for something that's from a completely different region. They'll be completely different files because of the langauge barriers and whatever else.

+ Show (18) more repliesLast reply 3104d ago
-Alpha3105d ago

Bet you those leeches didn't even care for OS but just found it as a easy way to try and get some money.

Never underestimate the innocence of the "little guy"

Anyways, I don't really care. If Sony is doing it protect themselves then that's what they need to do. I blame pirates if anyone is to blame.

yewles13105d ago

1. Blaming Sony for ensuring the security of their console BECAUSE someone opened Pandora's Box is not a crime.

2. Unless you purchased your console from Sony directly, don't be asking them for a refund.

3. Once again, BLAME GEOPUTZ!!!

Tony-A3105d ago

I would understand wanting a refund if they removed it just for sh*ts and giggles.

It was response to a "security breach".

Talk to the hackers that ruined it for you, instead.

You can play in the pool until someone pisses in it.... then everyone is thrown out.

Godmars2903105d ago

At the time said security breach had yet to be fully implemented or exploited. And in-between the time Sony decided to close that door, make the update that removed it, they could have done a quick headcount to see who was actually using the OS and offer some compensation.

If this were a perfect world where people would be honest about that sort of thing.

MajestieBeast3105d ago

Ask a refund from geofag cause he is to blame for this he wanted his 10 seconds of fame by exploiting other os. Noctis check next time before you buy dlc same happend with me and lbp nothing you can do about it.

Show all comments (48)
The story is too old to be commented.