They didn' t take away shit because they "felt like it" it was a big security risk for a low used feature that you choose to get rid of to use their free service. They didn't take anything away you had the choice.

Let's say they do take something away that you like then what? They would only hurt themselves in the eyes of there consumers. There would be nothing to gain but a loss in buyers. 

EDIT: What amazes me is that people know Linux could have led to Hottz opening the PS3 faster which would lead to pirates opening it more and mass theft to Sony and devolpers but they dont care.

"Are you implying that the maority of PS3 USERS are pirates? "

this is what i said : 

"the few bad...? you may disagree but i'd say without a doubt that the majority of people that hack their consoles do it solely to pirate games"

how do you get me implying that from that? what you said was completely unrelated

" that gives anyone the right to move their PS3 to ANOTHER online service, one that would better suit them "

i think you lost me completely there

"but it would have been enough to sway some people who were on the fence deciding on a game console."

yeah people that instead of paying attention to the promos and advertisements on the tv, box of the console etc chose instead to pay attention to pr speech...

i've made the point before that if thats how you choose to look at it then, for example, nintendo's declaration for stress sensing tchnology in games via the vitality sensor can also be compared ( from the point of view that someone may be swayed to purchase a console because of the features coming to that console as you said yourself ) but you don't seem to think so...

the reality is that all companies overhype their products in interviews in ways that are at times misleading

And installing Linux on the PS3 is a right for others?  So what rights are being given up in regard to the context of this thread, and how you YOU justify it as a right?  I exposed your hypocricy.  Stop justifying yourself.  All you're doing is appealing to the chior.

I got Linux installed on this 3G ram notebook and I seldom use it, imagine Linux on a 256 mb ram game console plug into a TV without access of video card, shuddders.

If u want Linux, sure u can install at any computer since all comes with at least 2 G rams and above nowadays, the stupid case is just some trolls that want to squeeze money from big companies.

Oh my, my hypocrisy is exposed.  Calling you out about your statement saying that playing online is a right when itss a privilege has exposed me.  I don't care about the rest of the thread.  I've just seen you use that statement before and it's just plain dumb. 

I will play a little though and say that installing Linux is not a right.  But apparently you simply can't pay attention.  Nobody is saying that installing Linux is a right, that is something your making up in your head and if anybody did say that it is right then they are wrong.  They are saying that Sony taking away a feature that was included with the system when they bought it is a violation of rights.  You do this with all Sony and hacking threads.  You ignore what others post and put things in their mouths so the entire argument is them correcting you and it gets nowhere so everyone just gives up and you feel smart. 

You act like you made a point with me and you've missed my entire point.  Go ahead and make more garbage up and make a smug statement so you feel better about yourself.  I'm watching Ernest Scared Crazy with my nephew.

Damn come on guys. Yes it isnt good customer service, yes it isnt right for the people who are affected. But please, be relative. The legal precedent that are set here isnt that any company can remove any rights to anyone.

I do reiterate that people affected from this situation should ask for and receive compensation. The argument is understandable from BOTH side.

Well you're not understanding the broad scope here, which is forcing security on all PS3 users, despite it being the minority exploiting the possibility. Do yourself a favour and read up the meaning of Liberty. What Sony is doing is classed as an attack on Liberty.

Yes well, if you can think in the broader scope, you'd notice that, despite the openness of publishing of third party games on all consoles, you're still stirictly locked on to one particular online service. It's not just Sony who's guilty here, either. PS3 gives you the option of PSN or none. 360 gives you the option of Xbox Live or none. This is one area in which the PC still reigns supreme in, the choice of digital distribution networks. Homebrew opens the door for such possibilities. You don't want to be on a network that allows cheaters? Fine, then pick another network. It would be as simple as that.

The only way that the Wii Vitality sensor would be anything like the OtherOS scandal is if Nintendo released the Vitality sensor, then several months later not only discontinued it, but asked for a recall of all purchased Vitality sensors, with threat that not doing so will result in banning from the Wii shop.  Of course, the Wii Vitality sensor never even made it to market. In fact, it never even got a release date, and no company has to oblige in releasing something they feel is off the mark etc. The difference is, OtherOS was already released. It was a full backpedal.

Why are you guys even arguing?

The plain and simple explanation is that Sony no longer supports all the features in 3.14. If you want to play on PSN update, if you want to watch new blurays update, if you want to play new games update.

This is no different than apple's tactic of forcing OSX updates down people's throat. "If you want to continue developing Iphone App, buy our new OS but keep in mind, we'll kill features like support for Intel Atom processors: http://gigaom.com/mobile/os-x-killing-intel-atom-support-no-hackintosh-for-you/, Rosetta - so you can't run PowerPC applications and possibly these other features:

-Front Row
- Adobe Flash Player and Apple's Java Runtime Environment (JRE)
- iSync,
- Remote Install Mac OS X
- Apple USB Modem

Would a murderer be classed innocent if another murders?

Wait....is this true? Are you forced to update in order to view the latest BluRay?

I see a lot of people arguing over whether you have certain rights, etc, regarding services and things like that. But I don't think this is a matter of rights to services.

If Sony simply prevented access to "new" services, nobody would have a problem. But the fact of the matter is, Sony sold their systems with the understanding that it would have certain functionality. Having an update that forces owners to choose which of two bits of functionality to drop turns it into a case of false advertising. And this is the argument that should have been put forward (I am assuming that there are laws against false advertising in America, as there are in Australia).

For those who are arguing in Sony's favour, let me ask you this. Suppose that they released an update. With this update, you are given a choice - give up the ability to play any game released before 2008, or give up the ability to play any new games, access any online functionality, or download any games. Logically, this is the same sort of situation as the one that really happened, with the only difference being the specific functionality being blocked by the update. Is Sony still within their right to do this?

Should the judge have thrown the case out? Probably... but not for the reason that Sony fans are putting forward. I'm guessing that they were suing Sony for the wrong reasons, lacked legal justification for the suit, and thus were going to lose anyway. This doesn't mean that Sony wasn't in the wrong, nor does it mean that a valid suit shouldn't go ahead.

Note that it would be a somewhat different situation if there were some additional functionality that was being exchanged for the lost functionality. If Sony simply made it, for instance, so that any title requiring Move wouldn't work on a system that still had Other OS functionality (assuming the Other OS issue came before Move's release), nobody could really complain, because purchase of a PS3 doesn't come with a guarantee that all peripherals will work with it. Therefore, the removal of Other OS would be part of a modification of the contract, with each side gaining something out of the change. This would, however, require that those keeping Other OS functionality didn't lose any online/download functionality or ability to play non-Move games.

To put it all very succinctly, if Sony removes functionality that may have influenced purchases (note the word "may"), and the only way to keep that functionality is to lose other functionality that may have influenced purchases, then Sony has committed false advertising.