| Capulous said: I agree, claiming Sony has more respect for customers than MS or Nintendo has no merit. MS and Nintendo did not list another OS as a selling point for their system. Sony did. They also offered free online play as well, it was not either or, it was for both. Since the PS3 was hacked and has been hacked before and after the removal of Linux; it seems like removing it changed nothing. Having additional features that is paid for (they were not "gifts") does not mean a company has more respect for consumers. These items were all part of the advertised package for PS3. If someone purchased a PS3 for these featueres, and when these features were advertised as part of the system, then they have every right to file a grievance. |
Just to correct the bolded part, you didnt use the correct argument, Ill explain. PSN requires a separate contract and agreement (its written on the box, manual, add, when you log ect), they dont has to sustain and internet service. Sony can even shut down the complete service if they want. Legally speaking you didnt pay for PSN on your PS3 purchase.
With that said, you just didnt use the right argument. New games on the market requires you to update the firmware, hence you need to choose between Linux and the ability to play new games, which isnt fair to the people using their PS3 for Linux and games. Playing game is the basic ability of the console. When you purchase a PS3, your paying for the ability to play future games as well as being able to keep the features being part of the PS3 purchase (in this case Linux). Hope you understand the nuance.
