secpierre34 said:
fillet said:
secpierre34 said:
fillet said:
secpierre34 said:
fillet said:
secpierre34 said:
Azerth said:
just like how sony allowed Linux but then took it away? |
because you were using linux. They took it away because nobody wanted it. That makes sense. Who bought a ps3 for linux???
|
Not relevant. It was known to be there by a significant number of buyers and those buyers may or may not have factored Linux into their purchasing decision. It's not for you or me to make suppositions on that fact - it's not measurable.
What can't be argued with is that it was there upon purchase but was later removed without consent.
That is what is wrong.
Not that it "can't be used anymore". It's why there was such a commotion, the consumer rights aspect. Not the "Oh but nobody used it anyway aspect".
By removing such a feature it sets a president for such actions in other areas of business and consumer rights violations.
It was a massive deal purely on that.
|
You didn't pay for linux when you bought the ps3. you had to get it yourself. The only thing the system did was supporting. In layman's term ps3 cost does not include linux.
|
Doesn't work like that, Linux is free and always will be.
The PS3 had a feature of the ability to install linux. That feature was removed. Therefore I am not happy.
I'm not sure why anyone would defend such an action of any company. I would be biting like a dog whatever company took such action. Consumer rights are important to me. If I pay for something and later on an option of any kind is taken away from me that was designed to be there at time of purchase I will be angrey and so would most people who didn't have a loyality towards said company.
I was very cheesed off when Cinavia was added to my Bluray player so I could no longer make backups and play certain disks too.
I don't like things changing once contract at point of sale or any contract has been made. If you think about this kind of thing a bit deeper instead of just "nobody used it anyway", it leads on to violation of consumer rights, unhealthy president favouring business and nothing good in return to consumer except your rights being eroded gradually over the years.
|
You feel entitled to stuff. Man you should read the fine prints of agreements where they state that the service provider reserves the right change the parametrics of their product. If it was illegal somebody smarter than both you and I would have made a fortune. You buy a computer and it gets a virus, do you go to microsoft and say what happened give me my money back? If you do take me with you.
Yet again I love microsoft decisison today. I just believe that sony's Linux "problem", which I've encountered today for the first time was not bad. I believe that consumers are smart and aware of where their money went. If it had been problematic people would have colluded like they did against DRM.
|
We'll have to agree to disagree on the Linux stuff. :) No offense at all by me saying that.
But back on topic, I still don't understand what the problem with Microsoft's U-Turn is.
Think it all stems from people forgetting that video game companies are your friends and therefore their actiions are not acts of betreayal but sound buisness decisions, even if you don't like them, it's not personal.
|
I still don't know who you're talking too because I already told you that I like what microsoft is doing. Companies only make money when we give it to them, and we give it to them when they make us happy. Their goal is to make us happy in order to make more money. Nobody buys something they hate.
|
Oh sorry, was referring to the OP really.
The Linux stuff is just opinion I guess, only so far people can argue their point but if people don't agree on the fundamentals then each to their own :)
In so far as the Xbox One DRM stuff policy change...well, still yet to hear from a coherant response from the OP and was directed at them. The tone of his posts personify Microsoft as an organic entity with humanistic qualities...Which can lead to posts of the OPs nature.
