| papamudd said: @fordy... Thread getting long for quotes.. Can't edit easily on my phone.. First off i do appreciate the conversation as you do more so come off as an intelligent user rather than a fan boy and i do greatly appreciate it as it is to rare these days. Now on to other points. 1 i want to restate that i dont agree or disagree with what happened, but my initial post was to refute a couple key points from some misinformed users on both sides said things that were just incorrect... The removal was not Mandatory nor with out consent of the user. It was not removed Because no one used it. 2. Those were the 2 main points i was trying to make as there seemed be be major misconceptions about it from sony and ms fans... 3. I cannot pretend to know the intricacies about the ps3 format, but i will assume, and reasonably, that they could have improved the integrity of the system by blocking access to certain things. However, i like to play devils advocate and perhaps they just chose the cheapest and easiest option as they were not in the most beneficial position at the time so they probably took the cheapest / easiest choice for the company at the time rather than spending money to protect the majority of users over the few which to them was mostly jsut taking advantage. I think other things could of been done, of course and you provided a great example. However what is done is done and while i may not agree with it i can understand the position. If this is somehow become an ms vs sony convo relating drm to other os i think this not a reasonable comparison by any means even though the reasoning behind both decisions is absolutely related to financial reasons. |
That's fine. I notice that people are trying to argue my points with stuff that Microsoft did, like they're going to expect me to stand up for them, too. A lot get shocked when I say that I don't fully side with any company, mainly because I know that the only thing in common with all three is their desire to make as much profit as possible, along with every other business in history. This is why it sickens me when I see some people who think that their side can do no wrong.
My critcism comes from when one of these companies annoucnes something that does not logically make sense. For instance, when Sony announced that the only way to fix the OtherOS problem was to remove it, my experience in the Software Engineering industry had me immediately question this claim, and consider what would the correct reasoning be for such a move. Thinking from a corporate mindset (and in particular, Sony's predicament), it would have been easy to see that the cheapest solution out of this was to drop support altogether. A fix to the VM itself would have indeed re-secured systems if deployed correctly, so any claims that it would have put PSN in jeopardy would not have made any sense, considering also that Sony still has ultimate control over it's cloud network. As I mentioned int he last post, the OtherOS became a situation of "high investment for little gain" and, given the most likely low usage for the function, decided to remove it on the basis that consoles still with it could no longer access PSN.
I blame the OP. It came off as rather agressive, that Microsoft did this massive backpedal like with HD-DVD (even though Microsoft didn't really put much console support into it, otherwise the Xbox360 would have had a HD-DVD re-release before the PS3 could get a foothold). My initial response was to people who thought that Sony was the industry savior,w hen I was highlighting that, even though they may have had a more reasonable consumer thought in mind, they still had a legitimate agenda for trumping this negativity up...
