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

Forums - Sony - How will automatic update EULA work?

Akvod on 26 May 2010
Kasz216 said:
Akvod said:
twesterm said:
Tridrakious said:
twesterm said:
Tridrakious said:
twesterm said:

So I was thinking today about the automatic updates and how cool those could be and then I thought about the people that refuse to update their PS3 so they don't lose the Other OS feature.  Usually when a system update comes out they update the EULA and you have to agree to that before you can update.  That is just how those things work and that is how those people can keep their Other OS feature.

How would this work if you had automatic updates turned on?

Would you have a checkbox to just automatically agree to any future EULA update?  If  you even could do that, why hasn't someone done that before?

If that's a no, then would automatic updates be turned off for system updates or anything else that you have to agree to the EULA?  If that's the case, then isn't the automatic update feature kind of worthless?


It's just for games. If they made the system auto update the system software, Sony would lose a great bulletpoint in the lawsuit of not technically forcing consumers to update their systems if they don't want to.

Yeah but that goes to wondering how useful the feature would actually be.  I can think of a handful of times I've had to patch games after I bought them the rest of the time it happens when I pop in the disc.

If it were free then no worries, but if I have to pay for it, I have to wonder how much use I'd get for it.  I know it seems like I'm dogging on the PSN+ thing, I just like to think about things before I decide if I'm excited or even want it.

Well if you're getting PSN+ that means you've got a legit up to date PS3. So for you there is no problem.

For the PS3 Linux lovers out there (the 5 out there) they will have to update their PS3 to utilize PSN+.

And I agree I want to know what I'm getting for my hard earned money.

That's why generally I perfer one platform over having multiple systems. PS3 has paid for itself in spades. PSN+ is going to be optional as well.

No doubt Sony will use E3 to unveil everything for the new service. I expect a September launch at the earliest.

Well scratch that, this seems like something Sony could spring at the end of their conference.

But what if say down the line they removed another feature people loved?  A year ago nobody thought Sony would actually remove Other OS but they did.  What if a year after the Automatic Updates are introduced someone found a way to hack the PS3 through the PS1 emulator and they had to remove that?

Then that'll be an actual case of removing a feature, rather than removing access to it. If that makes sense. The PS1 emulator is actually a part of the PS3, while the PSN is not, just like LIVE is not a part of the 360, while it's own emulator is actually a part of the 360.

....No it wouldn't.

They would just remove the PS1 emulation in the same way they removed Other OS.  Do it or you don't get PSN.

Oh yeah... and you can't play any new PS3 games.   Which you know.  The Other OS update did.  Cut people off from any newly released PS3 games.  (See Red Dead redemption)

What do you mean you can't play new PS3 games? Do you need the firmware update to download game updates?



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 26 May 2010
Akvod said:
Kasz216 said:
Akvod said:
twesterm said:
Tridrakious said:
twesterm said:
Tridrakious said:
twesterm said:

So I was thinking today about the automatic updates and how cool those could be and then I thought about the people that refuse to update their PS3 so they don't lose the Other OS feature.  Usually when a system update comes out they update the EULA and you have to agree to that before you can update.  That is just how those things work and that is how those people can keep their Other OS feature.

How would this work if you had automatic updates turned on?

Would you have a checkbox to just automatically agree to any future EULA update?  If  you even could do that, why hasn't someone done that before?

If that's a no, then would automatic updates be turned off for system updates or anything else that you have to agree to the EULA?  If that's the case, then isn't the automatic update feature kind of worthless?


It's just for games. If they made the system auto update the system software, Sony would lose a great bulletpoint in the lawsuit of not technically forcing consumers to update their systems if they don't want to.

Yeah but that goes to wondering how useful the feature would actually be.  I can think of a handful of times I've had to patch games after I bought them the rest of the time it happens when I pop in the disc.

If it were free then no worries, but if I have to pay for it, I have to wonder how much use I'd get for it.  I know it seems like I'm dogging on the PSN+ thing, I just like to think about things before I decide if I'm excited or even want it.

Well if you're getting PSN+ that means you've got a legit up to date PS3. So for you there is no problem.

For the PS3 Linux lovers out there (the 5 out there) they will have to update their PS3 to utilize PSN+.

And I agree I want to know what I'm getting for my hard earned money.

That's why generally I perfer one platform over having multiple systems. PS3 has paid for itself in spades. PSN+ is going to be optional as well.

No doubt Sony will use E3 to unveil everything for the new service. I expect a September launch at the earliest.

Well scratch that, this seems like something Sony could spring at the end of their conference.

But what if say down the line they removed another feature people loved?  A year ago nobody thought Sony would actually remove Other OS but they did.  What if a year after the Automatic Updates are introduced someone found a way to hack the PS3 through the PS1 emulator and they had to remove that?

Then that'll be an actual case of removing a feature, rather than removing access to it. If that makes sense. The PS1 emulator is actually a part of the PS3, while the PSN is not, just like LIVE is not a part of the 360, while it's own emulator is actually a part of the 360.

....No it wouldn't.

They would just remove the PS1 emulation in the same way they removed Other OS.  Do it or you don't get PSN.

Oh yeah... and you can't play any new PS3 games.   Which you know.  The Other OS update did.  Cut people off from any newly released PS3 games.  (See Red Dead redemption)

What do you mean you can't play new PS3 games? Do you need the firmware update to download game updates?

You need the firmware update to play new games period.

Red Dead Redemption doesn't run on any console that doesn't have the Other OS destroying update.  So it's functionally the same as removing PS1 compatability... cause the Other OS "choice" makes you give up PS3 compatability.



Akvod on 27 May 2010
Kasz216 said:

You need the firmware update to play new games period.

Red Dead Redemption doesn't run on any console that doesn't have the Other OS destroying update.  So it's functionally the same as removing PS1 compatability... cause the Other OS "choice" makes you give up PS3 compatability.

If that's the case, then yeah, they'll lose the case, since that's actually removing a feature (playing PS3 games), whereas you can still use the OS option by simply not downloading the firmware.

Can you give me a quick link or anything to prove it? Because I swear that I held off on a firmware update when I wanted to play a quick game before class last winter.



joeorc on 27 May 2010
nightsurge said:
I think it is just for game updates and not system updates. Do game updates require you to agree to EULA terms again? I can't remember from the last time I updated a game whether I had to or not.

yupper's

it's EULA is there also



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 27 May 2010
Akvod said:
Kasz216 said:

You need the firmware update to play new games period.

Red Dead Redemption doesn't run on any console that doesn't have the Other OS destroying update.  So it's functionally the same as removing PS1 compatability... cause the Other OS "choice" makes you give up PS3 compatability.

If that's the case, then yeah, they'll lose the case, since that's actually removing a feature (playing PS3 games), whereas you can still use the OS option by simply not downloading the firmware.

Can you give me a quick link or anything to prove it? Because I swear that I held off on a firmware update when I wanted to play a quick game before class last winter.

http://news.vgchartz.com/news.php?id=80107

As for them losing the case... it's not like judges are particularly consistant on tech cases.

I agree this SHOULD lead to them losing... but will it?