fordy said:
Icyedge said:
fordy said:
Icyedge said:
fordy said:
Icyedge said:
Hence the removal of PSN, not "other OS". PSN is a separate agreement, they can legally close, refrain or ban anyone at any time. That was the point of the judge.
|
Exactly! Sony have every right to ban you from THEIR service, so this whole crap about sacrificing personal property freedoms for the protection of cheating is pure bullshit.
|
Its not about removing "other OS", its about removing PSN to people who want to keep "other OS". Which like you just said, is rightful. Sony can apply any rules they want for people to access their PSN service, in this case, the removal of "other OS". Read the judge's conclusion once again.
|
Ahh, but let me ask you this. Do some off-the-shelf games require updates to the firmware AFTER the OtherOS removal branch? If so, you've also effectively disabled the PS3 as a game console, not just PSN..
|
Like I said on page 3, either the judge missed that point, or nobody have concrete proof of that. Ill give benefit of doubt to the judge :). That being said, if it can be proved that new games have on disc mandatory installation that requires you to remove "other OS" the petitioners should go into appeal. In any case, the issue is being extremely exagerated ;).
|
Hence the "lack of evidence" conclusion. Sony weren't found innocent. They were found "not guilty".
So with this in mind (that it was only PSN they were defending), why is Sony defending a roundabout way of enforcing security on it's online service? Why not just enforce more security measures on the online service?
|
"just enforce more security measures on the online service?"
hackers can't find a way around that right?
wasn't the gaming network thought of as the best and most secure ( steam ) hacked just a short while ago?...
furthermore you're forgetting to mention that one of the issues involved here wasn't just PSN but also the exploits allowing for piracy that were spread by geohot, that is an unrelated issue to PSN that had to be dealt with
