Now all we need is for someone to link that thread were other posters were convinced Sony would lose this case.

I think it was more of a case of hoping they lose rather than being convinced they would, the removal of other OS just gave them another opportunity to justify their whining.

I don't care which one gets removed, Other OS or PSN, but either way, it's the customer that loses something that was supposed to come with the product. And I don't care what the EULA of PSN says, if it doesn't say it on the box of PS3. The average customer doesn't know they can lose PSN if they don't update. I guess I wouldn't have known if before Sony removed Other OS if I didn't own a PS3, and I don't consider myself the average customer.

Damn, how many times will I have to tell you. PSN isnt on the PS3 box. It doesnt come with your PS3 purchase. Its a free extra, they dont have to provide it to begin with.

To me, it definitely seems like PSN is an advertised feature which alone would make this whole thing pretty pointless. Also, try telling that to the average customer, he will most likely say he didn't know the difference.

The problem with the whole other OS thing is that certain games force you to update your firmware. It has nothing to do with PSN. You lose the ability to play games after a while if you want to keep Other OS.

 
Definitly, this is what the plaintiff should have use as argument when demanding compensation: My system should play games (primary function) that doesnt requires new hardware (like PSMove), as well as keep the features it had at the time of purchase. Im wandering if theres many games that you cannot play past the "remove other OS" firmware.

The problem with the whole other OS thing is that certain games force you to update your firmware. It has nothing to do with PSN. You lose the ability to play games after a while if you want to keep Other OS.

I'm thinking everything after REd Dead Redemption. Since that was the first game that it was made necessary