You are argueing that we shouldn't rush to judgement... on something that's been true 100% of the time.

Basically your arguement is.... "While the sun has shone every day... we shouldn't rush to judgement and wait till tommorrow to see if the sun rises again."

This is a wholey illogical assumption.

Either way, note the Sony reply from my customer service query.  New games from Sony, even normal ones WILL require 3.21 or higher.

"Basically your arguement is.... "While the sun has shone every day... we shouldn't rush to judgement and wait till tommorrow to see if the sun rises again."

This is a wholey illogical assumption."

No its not! that is completly logical, You can not guaranty the sun will rise tommorow. you can be 99.9% sure it will but never 100%.

Sure it is.  Afterall... would you argue I shouldn't make any plans for tommorrow because the sun might not rise?

they said in their response :

"Thank you for writing us with your concerns about the 3.21 system software update. Please be advised that it is up to the individual game publishers as to whether or not a particular game will require the 3.21 update or a later update in order to play on your PlayStation(R)3 computer entertainment system. Therefore, we are unable to provide a definitive answer to your question. However, it would be prudent to assume that any game released after the 3.21 update may require this update, and therefore may not play on your PlayStation 3 console should you choose not to update your system software."

that is not the same thing as :

"Will Require"

though with this statement:

However, it would be prudent to assume that any game released after the 3.21.

the law of prudence:

example:

"No other protection is wanting, provided you are under the guidance of prudence."

           —— Juvenal (60-140).

Altruist follows the Prudent Investor Rule.  The Prudent Investor Rule is a legal doctrine which provides guidance to investment managers regarding the standards for managing an investment portfolio in a legally satisfactory manner.

Basically, prudent investing amounts to a process which one follows.  If the process followed in making investment decisions is prudent (based on what is known and not known at that time), then the decisions being made are prudent, regardless of subsequent results.  Example:  It would be imprudent to "invest" one's money in a lottery.  The relative prudence of the decision isn't affected by the fact that the investor may have subsequently won the lottery.  If she won the lottery, then she got lucky and had a spectacularly good result despite a spectacularly imprudent "investing" decision.  But winning the lottery doesn't justify the imprudence of playing the lottery in the first place.  Indeed, while we'd all like to win the lottery, it simply isn't prudent to try to do so.

so you may have to ask yourself what would a prudent man do in this situation. wait to see or update right away?

since you can update at anytime, the person that responded to your Question gave you

"Therefore, we are unable to provide a definitive answer to your question"

because the person did not know the answer and was not sure, but did give you as far as they can tell that it "MAY REQUIRE" and you should take prudence.

To play Warhawk, you would need PSN access, something you are not entitled to have. PSN is not a part of the PS3 when you buy it, but it is simply a service that Sony offers for free to customers who have bought their product. I bet they inform you about the need PSN access when you buy or start up Warhawk.

There is nothing to complain about, yet... Since future firmware is not part of the initial purchase, is that even something we can complain about? I mean, you are not forced to use firmware 3.21, it's a choice you make. You bought your games and own them and are able to play them, but future games? Are you entitled to be able to play future games? Games with 3D support? Or basically any game that require new features brought by firmware? I'm not sure about this. I mean, I have bought a PS3 and many, many games, but am I entitled to be able to buy new games and play them? Let's say I want to play Red Dead Redemption and that this game requires firmware 3.30 to be able to play it, how is it my legal right to be able to play this game if I don't meet the requirements? I'm not forced to buy this game and play it, it's a choice I make. You either meet the game's requirements or not. You still haven't bought the game since it's not released, and so far, my PS3 let me play all the games I have paid for, sans the use of PSN.

You missed the point.  I asked "will ALL games after a certain point of time require the update."

Simply put... if sony themselves were planning to still support people who didn't update to other OS.  The answer is simple.  No.

Therefore, Sony does NOT plan to do this.  Whether or not all will is based on what the other developers do... this is why they can't provide a definitive answer.  If they themselves were to support this.  They could provide a definitive answer since it wouldn't be "every game" after the firmware is in effect for developers.

In effect Sony is making you choose between regular "normal games" made by Sony and the Other OS feature.

 a few lawyer's that i have talked to about this situation have stated about this is about what right's does the consumer have over the software of any machine they buy?

that's what in their OPINION this is going boil down too:

What right's does a consumer have over the software on a machine they buy. you have many right's of the hardware but the software is a whole another story:

EXAMPLE:

UNIFORM COMPUTER INFORMATION

SECTION 107. LEGAL RECOGNITION OF ELECTRONIC RECORD AND AUTHENTICATION; USE OF ELECTRONIC AGENTS.

(a) A record or authentication may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form.

(b) This [Act] does not require that a record or authentication be generated, stored, sent, received, or otherwise processed by electronic means or in electronic form.

In any transaction, a person may establish requirements regarding the type of authentication or record acceptable to it.

(d) A person that uses an electronic agent that it has selected for making an authentication, performance, or agreement, including manifestation of assent, is bound by the operations of the electronic agent, even if no individual was aware of or reviewed the agent’s operations or the results of the operations.

 http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/archives/ulc/ucita/ucita200.htm

no i did not miss the point.

the response that person gave you is it "May Require" that is not the same as Will REQUIRE!

that's not what they stated: you asked a question that the person was not able to answer and now your  trying to gather the answer out of something that  person does not know the answer too themselves. you may even gather a seperate response that may be something like this but they will most likely not know the answer too because it's upto the developer what they require for their software.

and because that software may be in developemnt or may not even be ready yet for development but is in the early planning stages, they responded to your question based on what they know right now.

it May Require!

Not Will Require

Actually... that IS what they stated.

A) They stated they couldn't answer my question because it was up to the individaul publisher.  This is why they couldn't inform me.

B) Sony is infact... a game publisher.

C) Therefore if they were planning to support it... they COULD answer my question.

I didn't ask all.  I asked any.  In otherwords... any sony backing of it would mean they could answer my question.  The fact that they aren't even sure... is just a further proof though that they didn't consider new games as relevent for Other OS people however when they removed Other OS.  So even if you were right, (which you aren't) you'd be wrong.

Or to put it a simple way. You and I work at the same office.

I want to know if you plan to eat a snickers bar today... so I ask.

"Will anyone eat a snickers bar today because I am allergic to peanuts."

your reply is

"I don't know, I can't speak for anyone else in the office... so I can't tell you one way or another if someone will have a snickers bar, you'd better be careful and wear gloves."


I can safely assume you are in fact not going to have a snickers bar... since otherwise you could of simply said "Yes, I plan to have a Snickers bar today."

By stating that you don't know if someone is going to have a snickers bar today you are infact telling everyone that you are not currently planning on having a snickers bar today.