| twesterm said: Something fishy is going on here. Either that guy lied about how clean his console was, that isn't his console, or they made his console dirtier. Lets look at each thing. The guy lied If I've learned anything from House it's that everybody lies. This guy could just be stretching the truth about how clean he was, but if that is the case, you would think he knows that his console is that dirty. Why would he fight so hard for such a dirty console and even go as far as making a big spiel on the internet? Also, why would anyone be dumb enough to send a console that dirty? I don't like conspiracy theories, but I have trouble believing the guy would send in a console that dirty. That Isn't His Console Nobody is perfect and his console could have been switched on accident with another one. As unlikely as this sounds, to me, this sounds like the most likely thing. I wonder if the guy was smart enough to write down his serial number. Sony Made It That Dusty Like I said, I don't like conspiracy theories but something isn't sitting right about this whole thing. The guy had to go through a lot of trouble to get those pictures and yeah, the PS3 is a dust magnet, but I really don't think it would get that bad letting it sit in an entertainment center for a year. That really looks like Sony set it on a patch of dirt and took a leaf blower to it because I just can't see any way the console could get that dusty. So yeah, all three don't really seem likely but it has to be one of those. As unlikely as it is, the second seems the most likely but still that's just odd. |
Just wondering here, why was this thread created when the other one had the exact same information from the start of this whole thing? Anyway, just to clear something up, I belive that the $150 was actually a replacement fee and not to repair it. Also, under the warranty (or terms of use... whatever) neglect of the unit can void it and while it's difficult to really say from the pictures since fingerprints are easily left behind (though dust in certain areas was pretty extreme), I still want to see the inside like I've been saying in the other thread. However, if the outside was that bad, then I'm probably thinking that the inside could be pretty dusty as well.
Anyway, onto Twestern's post,
The guy lied- Maybe, but maybe not. It's hard to say because he claims that he wiped his PS3 down. We can't say it's because of the fingerprints since the PS3's surface causes fingerprints and scratches to be seen easiler with some light, I belive the pictures confuse the matter even more.
Isn't his console- I don't know, the guy made a post on the same website he started this thing from and confirmed that it was his PS3. He even made a poll asking people to decide based on the pictures for reference.
Sony made it dirty for the pictures- When it comes to the fingerprints, that is a yes since they had to handle it. However, I have no idea about the dust. I don't know, if there wasn't a lot of dust, why would any of this have ever happened in the first place?
In the end, the inside is where it'll probably count the most because if it indeed because too much dust got inside, then it could very well mean that he had 'neglected' his PS3 especially if that is really how his PS3 looks.
