By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
greenmedic88 on 14 March 2011
Edit Thread
dsister said:
greenmedic88 said:

Legally, there was no mention of "Supports Linux" advertised anywhere. If there was, feel free to direct everyone to it.

If SCE wanted to play legal games, seeing as how there seem to be those who think they really know the law, they could just release a not-Linux "Other OS" that was effectively useless.

If anyone wants to argue that they should legally be able to use any firmware on their console dating back to say 2006, claiming that they must legally be able to play any current software being released, many of which won't run without memory optimized firmware updates (for those who don't understand how that works, current versions of firmware use less RAM than older versions, freeing up available memory for developers to optimize their games), they can feel free to hold out a tin cup for donations for their legal case too.

It was on every Amazon page in the world. That's why they paid out the teeth after Sony removed it. It was also in one of those stupid "It can only do everything" commercials... Not to mention Phil harrison pimping it out all over IGN saying you don't need a PC anymore

That would still be removing otherOS support...

Now you are just rambling.

And that's why Amazon paid through the teeth and Sony didn't. Also, I don't see how it could have been in one of SCE's "It can only do everything commercials" considering that the ad campaign you're referencing didn't start until well AFTER the PS3 slim was released, which as everyone knows, never supported Other OS.

And no, if it was a legal issue that they were found liable for, they would restore an "otherOS" support of their choosing because once again, Linux support was never explicitly advertised nor included in the feature set. What Phil Harrison said is completely irrelevant; plenty of inane things were said by SCE in regards to the PS3 launch that have zero bearing on legal liability. 

Do we need a chart to make the whole updated firmware concept easier to understand? Older firmware uses more system RAM. Older games have less system RAM available to run. Newer firmware uses less system RAM. Newer games written to run on newer firmware may use that now unallocated system RAM to run optimally, or in some cases run at all as they won't run with less system RAM.

This is just one of many reasons for updated firmware and the reason why any game requiring updated firmware (whether it's to make use of freed up system RAM, security measures, whatever; it's irrelevant so long as it runs) would have the updater on the game disk. Nobody's liable because an end user can't run new software on an older version of a no longer supported (any previous firmware) version of the OS.

Disagree? Then reference a case that shows how any new software written for Windows or Mac OS for example, must run on any previous version of an operating system with the idea that Microsoft or Apple is legally liable if it doesn't.