By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
r505Matt on 05 April 2010
Edit Thread
Darc Requiem said:
C_Hollomon said:
Lets see here. Sony also took away 2 USB ports(use to have 4), PS2 emulation, and SACD(Super Audio CD). So I guess it was illegal to take away these things too right. The OS was taken out the slim PS3 and now Sony want it out the fat PS3. I see nothing illegal about what Sony doing. They did things to cut cost and make sercurity better. More XBL accounts been hacked than PSN. Sony is doing a damn good job in sercurity for PS3 owners. If the PS3 can be hacked through OS then Sony has the right to take it out. If you want to blame someone blame the hackers. Sony wouldn't be doing this if it wasn't for people like the geohot nerd.

I'm looking at my brothers 60GB right now. The only thing currently missing from his system feature wise is the other OS feature. You are comparing apples to oranges. I didn't use Other OS my PS3, neither did my brother. I don't like the precedent this "update" sets. I can't believe how short sighted PS3 owners are being with this. What happens when they take out something you do use?

That's essentially why some of us are annoyed/upset about this. If they can just start taking away features and get away with it, what's to stop them from taking away something we all actually care about?

@joeorc, 

You have shown in numerous threads that you do not listen to reason on this topic. When a product no longer does what was advertised, that is grounds for false advertising (read and understand this before you move on, it's very important). I understand why Sony did what they did, and I'm pretty sure they thought this was the cheaper option in the end, but that doesn't make it legal. There are legitimate grounds for legal action. In the end, it depends on the decision of the court it is brought to. The only way I can see them getting away with it is if they can prove there is a serious security risk in the removed feature. They can't just make assumptions though, they'd pretty much have to "show their work" so to speak, and show exactly how it poses a security risk. If they do that, they can get away with it, but it would also reveal security flaws in their system that I'm not sure they want to reveal. This is also assuming a justice system that works, but that's a different matter altogether.

Saying the update is optional is ridiculous (not to mention everything in life is optional, it's all semantics). The PS3 was advertised as having a set of features, and now people are forced to choose features. Either, keep the Other OS option, or be able to play/watch the newest games/movies and access PSN. Now, you get either PS3 with 1 set of features, or a PS3 with another set of features, but all of them were advertised. 

I expect the full package when I buy a product. If I bought a phone, and later found out I could keep either the camera, or access the internet, I'd be pretty pissed. How bout you? If you bought a product, and eventually had to choose between a few advertised features, wouldn't you be annoyed/angry/upset yourself? Just because it's not a feature you use or care about doesn't mean it's not important. This sets a dangerous precedent.

Again, I reiterate, there are grounds for a false advertisement/bait and switch case. That does not mean that the courts will surely find Sony guilty of false advertisement, but they might, and I think there's a pretty good chance they could. But law is all about semantics and syntax, if you can twist it to your favor, or show legal precedent, you can get around almost anything. That said, I'm mostly talking of US law, I'm even more sure that Sony will get slammed by EU law over this.