People are getting seriously bogged down in moralistic arguments based on expectations they had about Sony's online service, while conveniently ignoring reality. I doubt very much what Sony did equates to creating a good PR image but they were entirely legally and morally justified to do it. The simple truth remains that when each customer initially agreed to the PSN EULA they agreed that Sony could change the terms of that usage at any time, for virtually any reason. If I buy a product and knowingly sign an agreement that allows the product's manufacturer to change the terms of its usage I have absolutely no basis, legal, moral, or otherwise to oppose those changes when they happen. For God sake, I knowingly signed an agreement that said they could make those changes.

All these "scandals" are just a bit of internet bluster caused by about three nerds. Everybody else clicks "I agree" and gets on with enjoying their games. The level of actual caring about these issues by PS3 owners is perfectly synopsized in this photograph: http://i56.tinypic.com/2w5rmuo.jpg. Mountain out of molehill methinks.

I also assume the "Is A PS3 Worth Having Anymore ????" is a bit of sarcastic faux-trolling.

Except EULA's aren't really fully legally enforceable. 

The EULA part about not sueing was never really meant to hold up so much as try and convince people to not sue them.

The majority of things in EULA's aren't enforceable and are just there for show to try and convince people to not do those things.

sometimes a facepalm is not enough for threads like this.

You are aware Microsoft has a similar anti lawsuit EULA, aren't you?

That's a fair point and I'm sure we could both cite cases where aspects of EULAs have been dismissed or upheld by various courts. However it is highly unlikely that any court could or would rule against Sony in the instance of the removal of the "Other OS". The fact is Sony made no bones about the variability of the terms of PSN usage from the get go, to a point where all consumers should have been reasonably aware of the possibility of significant changes in those terms occuring. Since Sony made no attempt to mislead consumers into believing that the terms of PSN usage were anything other than variable it would be nigh on impossible to prosecute them as having engaged in false advertising on this matter.

The point I was making is that all consumers should have been aware of this variability. The possibility of changes in terms and conditions to PSN usage was something they accepted when they purchased a PS3.

Wow...just wow...

A) Why are you argueing about Other OS when this is a lawsuit about EULA requiring you to not file lawsuits about anything?

B) A Court hd already ruled against Sony in that matter in I want to say sweeden.   An American court hasn't, although feasably could have, which is why Sony settled with Geohotz.  Sony was argueing two opposite arguements in court.  Had Geohotz been found guilty it ironically would of set precedent on the matter that could be cited to convict Sony.  All the Other OS Lawyer would of had to do was point out the conflciting arguements and the Geohotz conviction, and it'd of been over.

C) Additionally reserving the right to change things isn't a blanket legal defense.  If for example, sony had used that clause to update your PS3 to stop playing games.  You can bet Sony would lose that lawsuit.  This was more a case about how much more preiphery advertised features are rights.  What wasn't argued and should of been, was the fact that PSN usage is completley irrelevent to the situation.

I haven't run PSN since the Other OS thing, yet I can't run Other OS because you can't run later games without applying the latest firmware that disables it.  The whole "accessing PSN" thing is really irrelevent.

The real Other OS choice was..  Other OS  VS Playing any future game including singleplayer ones.  That is a case they almost definitly would have lost.

B) I don't know if things would work out quite as black and white as all that.

C) Nobody, least of all me, is trying to argue it's a blanket legal defense. It certainly would not be a defence in the scenario you outlined. In the instance I referred to, however, it does offer them some legal protection. EULAs, after all, do exist for a reason and are not completely devoid of legal standing, as some would argue.

But they are devoid of legal standing in matters where they deign to override established consumer rights, which are the matters that have been in contention