Sony gets sued.

[Inphidel]

In March, Sony released firmware v3.21 that disabled the feature, disallowing users from installing the Linux operating system. The update was not mandatory; however those who chose not to download it were cut off from a number of other features, one of which included signing in to PlayStation Network.

The suit also alleges Sony violated California's Unfair Competition Law by restricting the PS3's functionalities by "forcing consumers to choose between the Other OS function and the Other Advertised Features impaired by Update 3.21"

The suit states those who purchased a PlayStation 3 had "no ability to negotiate the System Software License Agreement's terms which was only provided to them after they purchased their PS3s, including the terms allowing Sony to remove functions at will, allowing it unilaterally change the System Software License Agreement at will and forcing consumers to either accept any changes in the System Software License Agreement or cease their use of their PS3."

see also: http://ps3movies.ign.com/ps3/document/article/108/1086720/gov.uscourts.cand.226894.1.0.pdf

Surprised this isn't being debated on here at all? - this essentially tho I don't see anything seriously changing anytime soon, change alot about gaming. Imagine the door being opened up to where the agreement when purchasing as is meant it had to stay as is. this could effect patching, mods, and the like, no?

very interested to see where this goes.

[brkl]

Eh, law never changes.

[Patters]

I think it's simply because we don't care.

The PS3 ran linux horribly, those complaining probably want to hack theirs.

[Inphidel]

I think it's simply because we don't care.

The PS3 ran linux horribly, those complaining probably want to hack theirs.

very true, still - it brings up the questions about what rights do developers have to change the product you have bought.

I mean, say you enjoy playing BC2 - you love playing RUSH mode and bought it specifically for this. and few weeks later they release a patch taking out RUSH mode claiming it bogged down servers.

Now BC2 has no modding community, you can't run your own server. and all server update to this patch.

Unless you update you cannot play BC2 online anymore.

Would you not feel robbed?

[dpp]

Well, they could make the PS3 run Chrome and Google TV... that would be sweeeeeeeeeet.

[Lu]

Would you not feel robbed?

That's a really weird hypothetical; I don't really see how it's similar. It's not in proportion.

[Inphidel]

That's a really weird hypothetical; I don't really see how it's similar.

The argument they're making is the removal of functionality that was advertised.

my example is the removal of something advertised in a game. while it's completely ridiculous business move to make, like say, taking out the classes in TF and turning into everyone uses every weapon and all move at the same speed etc etc.

the reason this interests me is because I'm wonder if there is an actual limitation to what can and cannot be modified in software after its release.

Realistically I just see this meaning that software or products that operate under a license use agreement will just add a paragraph saying they reserve the right to update/remove etc etc from now on. but I guess since i work at a law firm I find this quite interesting

[Patters]

very true, still - it brings up the questions about what rights do developers have to change the product you have bought.

I mean, say you enjoy playing BC2 - you love playing RUSH mode and bought it specifically for this. and few weeks later they release a patch taking out RUSH mode claiming it bogged down servers.

Now BC2 has no modding community, you can't run your own server. and all server update to this patch.

Unless you update you cannot play BC2 online anymore.

Would you not feel robbed?

I wouldn't quite see it that way. I see it in the same way as Microsoft blocking 3rd party (Datel) memory devices. Removing a half baked feature which is a security risk. It's also a feature I expect about one percent of the user base use.

[syntheticgerbil]

I just heard about the actual lawsuit last Friday. I'm not surprised they are getting sued, so I guess that means I think they were asking for it. Either way it won't matter as Sony is a giant media conglomeration that will not change from a lawsuit nor feel any sort of major financial ding if they were to lose. I'm guessing that's why most don't care, even if the feature they are removing was underused, not well made, or a security risk in the first place.

I'm sure either way all mention of Linux will disappear from further manufactured boxes and manuals from now on, which says enough in my opinion.

very true, still - it brings up the questions about what rights do developers have to change the product you have bought.

I would say no right unless they are adding to it, as you paid for the product at that moment for the features it had at that point in time. Even if they were adding to it, it would make sense to ask permission first.

[I Saw Dasein]

I would say no right unless they are adding to it, as you paid for the product at that moment for the features it had at that point in time. Even if they were adding to it, it would make sense to ask permission first.

In this case they did ask for permission in the sense that no one is required to update their firmware. Anyone adopting new firmware accepts new terms of use. So I don't think there is a problem in terms of getting consent or something.

[syntheticgerbil]

Wasn't it a mandatory firmware update that signed you out of PSN until you let it download? I'm pretty sure that's what happened on my console, and that hasn't been the only time. So sure, you could leave your console without the firmware update and continue to play all the games made before the recent update offline, but then you still wouldn't be able to use all of your consoles functions that were advertised on the box when you paid for it either way.

Edited May 21, 2010 by syntheticgerbil

[I Saw Dasein]

That's true, but then the question becomes whether Sony is obligated to provide PSN access to everyone who has purchased a PS3, even when they do not want to comply with PSN's terms of use (which probably includes keeping firmware updated).

So really people have a choice: continue using linux and most of the PS3's functionality but not PSN access, or give up linux in order to get access to PSN. Since I don't think that access to PSN can be seen as a "right" created by purchasing a PS3, I don't see this as problematic.

Maybe an interesting point of comparison would be a product you purchase with a major online component, where the online component has been discontinued. Is a purchaser of Hellgate: London entitled to some right based on the inavailability of online functionality? I don't think so. So it's difficult to see why a fairly minor change to PS3 hardware which affects a minority of users would give those users a right against Sony.

[ThunderPeel2001]

Hmm. Interested to see how this ends. They were found guilty of that CD/malware thing weren't they?

[syntheticgerbil]

Since I don't think that access to PSN can be seen as a "right" created by purchasing a PS3, I don't see this as problematic.

I'd say it's a right. If for some reason I was banned from having a PSN account, I would get rid of my PS3. It would be pretty useless from that point on with so many games dependent on you being logged in almost at all times.

Hmm. Interested to see how this ends. They were found guilty of that CD/malware thing weren't they?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_CD_copy_protection_scandal

Yeah it looks like they are still having trouble with that. I didn't buy a major Sony CD at the time (I think it was mostly on Ricky Martin CDs or something) but it sounded pretty nasty.

Edited May 20, 2010 by syntheticgerbil

[twmac]

Pretty sure that some PS3/X360 games don't run without the latest firmware and when booted, install it from the disc. This happened to a friend who never updated to the NXE, it eventually came on a game disc that was incompatible with the older firmware. Sure, the user is prompted before the install but that is a much heftier choice.

[Forbin]

I'm more pissed that their firmware updates removed my ability to play Blu-ray and DVD movies. I can still play games (for now), and it happened right after a firmware update, so it's pretty obvious it was their patch that screwed video playback.

They refuse to support rolling back to previous versions, or providing the latest version of the firmware as a single download to correct problems with corrupted delta patching. In general, I find the way Sony has behaved is unethical. They don't care that they break systems, and they want to charge $200 to fix something without giving their customers the ability to try to fix it themselves.

Another issue is with the stability of flash in the web browser. The PS3 used to be amazing because with updates it had the most current version of flash and was able to play video on practically every site. But then some browser patch was released and it crashes so often it's not even worth even launching the thing.

Consoles have just slid into this dystopia of consumer rights. As a paying customer I just want to enjoy my games without worrying that the next firmware update will brick my system or remove a feature I found essential.

[Thrik]

I don't really care much about this feature, but I'd say I'm firmly of the opinion that withholding PSN access is very much crippling the console in many ways. Generally when you buy a PS3 you expect to be able to play online, get patches, use the iPlayer, and everything else the PS3 is advertised as being able to do.

To force you to either sacrifice that or accept removal of other advertised features and then call it a choice is an extremely questionable stance to take IMO.

It's probably best to imagine it's something you actually care about, though. Pretend that instead of the Linux support being removed it's free online play that's being removed, or the iPlayer streamer (if in the UK), or the ability to play music, etc.