By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - Sony sued over Linux removal, Case documents surface

joeorc on 04 May 2010
Kasz216 said:
joeorc said:
Kasz216 said:
joeorc said:
Kasz216 said:
Icyedge said:
Kasz216 said:
Icyedge said:
 

As someone who pretty much never has his computer hooked up online, I can tell you... EVERY game has Sony's firmware on it... and there has NEVER been a special version of firmware.

It's just a matter of if the games being printed now have gotten the newer 2.21 or higher firmware yet to put on the disc.  The burden of proof is on you to show that for some reason Sony is going to act differently then they always have, with no given word from Sony that such a thing would occur.

All im saying since the start is: lets wait first that they actually do release disc games that force you to remove linux. Im not affirming anything. What should I prove? Its not me that is making assumption.

Between, I guess your right theres an update on every disc. But the question is, will they use an update that remove Linux on all their disc base games. Im not sure they will, you seem to be sure they will, so all im saying is we need to wait first and than do the proper conclusion. Since im suspending my judgment what could I prove? Im not affirming they will or they will not, im just saying we should wait that it happen first.

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.

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.

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.

that's not what they stated: you aew trying to gather the answer out of something that that person does not know the answer themselves. you may even gather a seperate response from someone else.

 

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.

you asked one person at Sony

this is what they stated:

"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."

though you would like them to state this:

"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 Wii require this update, and therefore may not play on your PlayStation 3 console should you choose not to update your system software."

see what i did there it changes the whole meaning of that Claim!

because if it stated Will than that would be in conflict with this statement:

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

they gave you their Answer:

MAY require is not the same as Will require

no matter how you try to say it's the same meaning it's not.



I AM BOLO

100% lover "nothing else matter's" after that...

ps:

Proud psOne/2/3/p owner.  I survived Aplcalyps3 and all I got was this lousy Signature.

Around the Network
Kasz216 on 04 May 2010
joeorc said:
Kasz216 said:
joeorc said:
Kasz216 said:
joeorc said:
Kasz216 said:
Icyedge said:
Kasz216 said:
Icyedge said:
 

As someone who pretty much never has his computer hooked up online, I can tell you... EVERY game has Sony's firmware on it... and there has NEVER been a special version of firmware.

It's just a matter of if the games being printed now have gotten the newer 2.21 or higher firmware yet to put on the disc.  The burden of proof is on you to show that for some reason Sony is going to act differently then they always have, with no given word from Sony that such a thing would occur.

All im saying since the start is: lets wait first that they actually do release disc games that force you to remove linux. Im not affirming anything. What should I prove? Its not me that is making assumption.

Between, I guess your right theres an update on every disc. But the question is, will they use an update that remove Linux on all their disc base games. Im not sure they will, you seem to be sure they will, so all im saying is we need to wait first and than do the proper conclusion. Since im suspending my judgment what could I prove? Im not affirming they will or they will not, im just saying we should wait that it happen first.

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.

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.

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.

that's not what they stated: you aew trying to gather the answer out of something that that person does not know the answer themselves. you may even gather a seperate response from someone else.

 

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.

you asked one person at Sony

they gave you their Answer:

MAY require is not the same as Will require

no matter how you try to say it's the same meaning it's not.

Once again... the fact that they don't know... proves they aren't supporting it.  Look one post up at the snickers analogy.  It's simple logic.



joeorc on 04 May 2010
Kasz216 said:
joeorc said:
Kasz216 said:
joeorc said:
Kasz216 said:
joeorc said:
Kasz216 said:
Icyedge said:
Kasz216 said:
Icyedge said:
 

As someone who pretty much never has his computer hooked up online, I can tell you... EVERY game has Sony's firmware on it... and there has NEVER been a special version of firmware.

It's just a matter of if the games being printed now have gotten the newer 2.21 or higher firmware yet to put on the disc.  The burden of proof is on you to show that for some reason Sony is going to act differently then they always have, with no given word from Sony that such a thing would occur.

All im saying since the start is: lets wait first that they actually do release disc games that force you to remove linux. Im not affirming anything. What should I prove? Its not me that is making assumption.

Between, I guess your right theres an update on every disc. But the question is, will they use an update that remove Linux on all their disc base games. Im not sure they will, you seem to be sure they will, so all im saying is we need to wait first and than do the proper conclusion. Since im suspending my judgment what could I prove? Im not affirming they will or they will not, im just saying we should wait that it happen first.

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.

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.

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.

that's not what they stated: you aew trying to gather the answer out of something that that person does not know the answer themselves. you may even gather a seperate response from someone else.

 

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.

you asked one person at Sony

they gave you their Answer:

MAY require is not the same as Will require

no matter how you try to say it's the same meaning it's not.

Once again... the fact that they don't know... proves they aren't supporting it.  Look one post up at the snickers analogy.  It's simple logic.

no its not:

once again change the word from May to Will and that changes the whole meaning of the statement

this is what they stated:

"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."

though you would like them to state this:

"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 Wii require this update, and therefore may not play on your PlayStation 3 console should you choose not to update your system software."

see what i did there it changes the whole meaning of that Claim!

because if it stated Will than that would be in conflict with this statement:

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



I AM BOLO

100% lover "nothing else matter's" after that...

ps:

Proud psOne/2/3/p owner.  I survived Aplcalyps3 and all I got was this lousy Signature.

Kasz216 on 04 May 2010

Uh, no it doesn't.... it doesn't change anything.

Any game MAY require the update... including the Sony ones.

This is true if Sony does plan to require 3.21...since other games MAY or MAY NOT.

"Any game MAY require the udpate" is false if sony does plan to require 3.21.

Since said Sony games will not require it.

It's the same as the above snickers reference.

The ONLY reason they stated they couldn't answer my question was that it was up to each publisher individually.  In otherwords.  We are requiring it, but we can't be sure every other publisher will also require it.


Otherwise they would of said "We aren't sure if we are going to require it for future games, additionally all publishers get to choose."



Icyedge on 04 May 2010
Kasz216 said:
Icyedge said:
Kasz216 said:
Icyedge said:
 

As someone who pretty much never has his computer hooked up online, I can tell you... EVERY game has Sony's firmware on it... and there has NEVER been a special version of firmware.

It's just a matter of if the games being printed now have gotten the newer 2.21 or higher firmware yet to put on the disc.  The burden of proof is on you to show that for some reason Sony is going to act differently then they always have, with no given word from Sony that such a thing would occur.

All im saying since the start is: lets wait first that they actually do release disc games that force you to remove linux. Im not affirming anything. What should I prove? Its not me that is making assumption.

Between, I guess your right theres an update on every disc. But the question is, will they use an update that remove Linux on all their disc base games. Im not sure they will, you seem to be sure they will, so all im saying is we need to wait first and than do the proper conclusion. Since im suspending my judgment what could I prove? Im not affirming they will or they will not, im just saying we should wait that it happen first.

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.

 

Your thick headed you know. You cannot sue with the assumption they will block your ability to play future PS3 games, thats very illogical. Whatever happen in the past its a different situation now. Theres nothing logical to expect since its a very different situation, were talking about an update that will leave you unable to play default PS3 games with your default system. Not an update that grant you new features.



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 04 May 2010
Icyedge said:
Kasz216 said:
Icyedge said:
Kasz216 said:
Icyedge said:
 

As someone who pretty much never has his computer hooked up online, I can tell you... EVERY game has Sony's firmware on it... and there has NEVER been a special version of firmware.

It's just a matter of if the games being printed now have gotten the newer 2.21 or higher firmware yet to put on the disc.  The burden of proof is on you to show that for some reason Sony is going to act differently then they always have, with no given word from Sony that such a thing would occur.

All im saying since the start is: lets wait first that they actually do release disc games that force you to remove linux. Im not affirming anything. What should I prove? Its not me that is making assumption.

Between, I guess your right theres an update on every disc. But the question is, will they use an update that remove Linux on all their disc base games. Im not sure they will, you seem to be sure they will, so all im saying is we need to wait first and than do the proper conclusion. Since im suspending my judgment what could I prove? Im not affirming they will or they will not, im just saying we should wait that it happen first.

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.

 

Your thick headed you know. You cannot sue with the assumption they will block your ability to play future PS3 games, thats very illogical. Whatever happen in the past its a different situation now. Theres nothing logical to expect since its a very different situation, were talking about an update that will leave you unable to play default PS3 games with your default system. Not an update that grant you new features.

Actually, you can.  Note how the lawsuit... involes and injunction.

Regardless... like I said, according to Sony.  They will require 2.21.

And yes... the deffault update leaves you unable to play default PS3 games... that's what the whole lawsuit is about... that and a breach of a bunch of consumer laws.

 

You actually CAN sue for something that is going to happen in the future by the way... provided you know they are going to do it.  The ruling mandates that they can't do it.  People do it all the time.  Injunctions and such.



akuseru on 04 May 2010
Kasz216 said:

Uh, no it doesn't.... it doesn't change anything.

Any game MAY require the update... including the Sony ones.

This is true if Sony does plan to require 3.21...since other games MAY or MAY NOT.

"Any game MAY require the udpate" is false if sony does plan to require 3.21.

Since said Sony games will not require it.

It's the same as the above snickers reference.

The ONLY reason they stated they couldn't answer my question was that it was up to each publisher individually.  In otherwords.  We are requiring it, but we can't be sure every other publisher will also require it.


Otherwise they would of said "We aren't sure if we are going to require it for future games, additionally all publishers get to choose."

You are amazingly stubborn, you know that? How do you know that they might be undecided about the issue? How do you know that the future titles they are talking about that MAY require 3.21+ aren't just the titles that will require 3D or Move?

I use this "may" / I don't know thing on my friends and family all the time. "Are you coming home tonight?". Answer: "I don't know". That means, I am UNDECIDED. I might come home, I might not. I haven't planned anything yet, it is simply UNDECIDED or UNCERTAIN. Something might come up, I might pass out at a friends house even though I PLANNED on going home tonight. So that Snickers thing you're writing is nothing but crap. At the last 5 minutes of work I might think "You know, that Snickers bar Kasz talked about earlier has been on my mind all day. I know I said I DIDN't KNOW but I want one anyways" or simply saying "I don't know" means, "I don't know, I am undecided about the issue. I might eat one, I might not. I am on a diet, I shouldn't eat it, still I might get tempted". There are a wide selection of meanings to this "I don't know" phrase. At least in my world...

Also, are you entitled to play future games on your PS3 if you don't meet the legally implemented requirements set by Sony? I wouldn't be so sure about that. No one is forcing you to buy or play new games, that is a choice you make. For instance, are you entitled to play games with PSN access? NO, you're not. Are you entitled to play games with 3D support? NO, you're not. Actually, if you don't upgrade the firmware you can only blame yourself for not being able to play these (or most other future) titles.. I would guess that buying and playing new games is a choice, not a right.

For instance, my launch Wii can't play double-sided(layered) discs. I can't play SSBB on my Wii, neither can my friend. If we want to play the game, we have to send our Wii to Nintendo so they can fix it. I know they're saying it's dust related and that they will vacuum it, but I heard rumors about Nintendo changing the disc drive because the launch Wii is not able to read double-layered games. Do I have a right to get compensation from Nintendo because when I bought the Wii, I thought I was going to be able to play SSBB? I would guess the answer is NO...

Oh, also. Other OS function has been gone for a long time now. The phat model has been discontinued and Other OS function is no longer a part of the PS3. Actually, it has never even been a part of the "it only does everything" campaign, so I am a little puzzled why people even bring this up into the discussion.



thranx on 04 May 2010

i'm with you on this kasz. I would add more, but i gave up in the thread where they said no law suit would come. Look where we are now, there is a law suit and people still want to side with sony. I do not get it, I guess not everyone wants the rights they have. But I for one hope sony looses this case and all consumers win. I don't personally have a ps3 but I do have a wii and it is not hooked up online and I have gotten firmware updates from discs there, so i do not see why sony would be any different. My 360 is online so it updates automatically but I am sure they have updates on disc too.

"For instance, my launch Wii can't play double-sided(layered) discs. I can't play SSBB on my Wii, neither can my friend. If we want to play the game, we have to send our Wii to Nintendo so they can fix it. I know they're saying it's dust related and that they will vacuum it, but I heard rumors about Nintendo changing the disc drive because the launch Wii is not able to read double-layered games. Do I have a right to get compensation from Nintendo because when I bought the Wii, I thought I was going to be able to play SSBB? I would guess the answer is NO..."

i do not have time to research your wii claim(did a little just now. it seems as though you can send your wii in for free to get cleaned and it will work fine so really do not see what you are saying here), but the fact that you can send it in to get your functionality back means they took nothing from you. Also on the box your wii came in it does not say it can read double layer disk or play ssbm does it? those would be thetwo major points here.



greenmedic88 on 04 May 2010

I'm still waiting for confirmation on that claim that some games require a disc loaded firmware update on consoles that aren't connected to a network. I'm willing to settle for ANY PS3 game.

Kaz claims the former with the alleged proof that it must be so since he doesn't keep his console connected to a network. One can only assume some, most or even all of the firmware updates he's installed to date have been off a BD game disc.

I just have to say that it's really odd that in three plus years of PS3 use, I've never been able to update firmware from a game disk. I've ALWAYS had to download the updates (in some cases go through the hassle of downloading them through a PC when PSN was breaking connections), which I'd rather not do if it was on my latest game disc since it takes more time and eats more bandwidth.

So I will deliberately leave the 3.15 firmware update on my original PS3 until I have a game in hand that requires me to install the latest firmware off the game disk before playing without arguing over which developer "may" or "will" do this in the near future, or even in the distant future when the first "3D only" game is published, which will obviously require a firmware update since 3D support was added after 3.15.

Either Kaz is correct, or will be correct in the indeterminate future a year or even later from now, or I'm going to have really old firmware on my console when that day finally arrives.



thranx on 04 May 2010

it may be awhile until a game with the frimware on it comes out, but I have done this on my wii, and i'm sure the 360 is the same, I do not see why the ps3 would be any different.