By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Lord Ciansworth on 27 December 2011
Edit Thread
Kasz216 said:
Lord Ciansworth said:

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.

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.