PS3 , Removal of other os . Mis- sold

vyle

I'm annoyed about it, too.

Especially since sony actually claimed otherwise:

OtherOS Will Not Be Removed From non-Slim PS3 Models
Posted by greg
Following up on this post where it was rumoured OtherOS may possibly be removed in a later firmware update has been debunked by SCE (Sony Computer Entertainment). In a mailing list post from Geoff Levand, PS3-Linux maintainer, he says SCE management has provided this tidbit:

Please be assured that SCE is committed to continue the support for previously sold models that have the “Install Other OS” feature and that this feature will not be disabled in future firmware releases.

Well that’s good news. Lets party!

Thanks for the link, sternn.

- source: ozlabs

I don't trust sony anyway, they've always been scum.

hippyadam

Geohot (the hacker Sony are so keen to silence) has issued this release on his blog

http://geohotps3.blogspot.com/2010/03/dont-update.html If i had a PS3 i'd certainly be waiting for his custom firmware.

Good work Sony, force your many loyal users to use non official firmware in your machines & lose all control...

Winner!

b33r

I find this story amusing. The only people it will affect will be those who want to legitimately run linux on the PS3, something that it was advertised as being able to do. Those who are trying to hack the PS3 will find a way round it. Sony Fail.

Reminds me of the DRM on PC games, the only people it affects are the legitimate users.

JUNIOR

So is this illegal ,have i got grounds to complain and be compensated ?

I would settle for a exchange for the slim , newer components and a quieter machine .

Pointless having the older model , feel like i've been conned big time !:(

DrScotsman

Surely this is just a simple application of the Sale of Goods Act (against the retailer, not Sony). The console was described as both having the Other OS feature, and all of the features that you will lose if you do not accept the update. The moment that update is required the console ceases to be "as described". None of the T&C that try to remove any rights count as:
(a) they're a contract between the user and Sony, and
(b) if I'm wrong about (a) and they do apply to the user-retailer contract, the Unfair Contract Terms Regulations will apply.

I really don't care whether or not JUNIOR was going to use this feature. Either way if he's telling the truth about buying the phat for this feature and getting a slim otherwise, he has suffered a loss. Sony cannot act in bad faith of customers like this. (I know that SoGA applies to the retailer, but I assume the retailer wouldn't eat their loss and would claim it back from Sony).

Although if one DID use this feature then the losses that they can quantify (without lying) may be greater.

custardy

DrScotsman wrote: »

Surely this is just a simple application of the Sale of Goods Act (against the retailer, not Sony). The console was described as both having the Other OS feature, and all of the features that you will lose if you do not accept the update. The moment that update is required the console ceases to be "as described". None of the T&C that try to remove any rights count as:
(a) they're a contract between the user and Sony, and
(b) if I'm wrong about (a) and they do apply to the user-retailer contract, the Unfair Contract Terms Regulations will apply.

I really don't care whether or not JUNIOR was going to use this feature. Either way if he's telling the truth about buying the phat for this feature and getting a slim otherwise, he has suffered a loss. Sony cannot act in bad faith of customers like this. (I know that SoGA applies to the retailer, but I assume the retailer wouldn't eat their loss and would claim it back from Sony).

Although if one DID use this feature then the losses that they can quantify (without lying) may be greater.

its an interesting one,however could the retailer argue that the the item isnt fit for purpose due to Sonys direct actions and as such the customer should be approaching Sony?

DrScotsman

custardy wrote: »

its an interesting one,however could the retailer argue that the the item isnt fit for purpose due to Sonys direct actions and as such the customer should be approaching Sony?

Surely by that logic any retailer who didn't manufacture their products could get out of a SoGA liability, as any inherent fault would have been due to the manufacturer's direct actions?

I see the point you're trying to make, but you've not really distinguished it from anything else that's not as described.

custardy

i know its tenuous but a fault is just that,a fault
whereas here we have the manufacturer cutting the whole consoles function off
either accept the loss of 'other OS' or accept you now have a fat bluray player with some game support relating to this

Consumers and organizations that currently use the “Other OS” feature can choose not to upgrade their PS3 systems, although the following features will no longer be available;
Ability to sign in to PlayStation Network and use network features that require signing in to PlayStation Network, such as online features of PS3 games and chat
Playback of PS3 software titles or Blu-ray Disc videos that require PS3 system software version 3.21 or later
Playback of copyright-protected videos that are stored on a media server (when DTCP-IP is enabled under Settings)
Use of new features and improvements that are available on PS3 system software 3.21 or later

so when the PS3 was sold it was fault free,as all these features worked
its like when M$ shut down the live features on the 360's for gamers using copy games
the end user broke the T&C's and lost their service
here sony are doing the same but the end user hasnt done anything

hippyadam

custardy wrote: »

its like when M$ shut down the live features on the 360's for gamers using copy games
the end user broke the T&C's and lost their service
here sony are doing the same but the end user hasnt done anything

Thats spot on squire OP have a bash at returning it to the point of sale, not as described under SOGA.

DrScotsman

custardy wrote: »

accept you now have a fat bluray player with some game support

Made me chuckle

so when the PS3 was sold it was fault free,as all these features worked

That's not good enough. You're effectively saying that a PS3 is sold as seen, which I know you know isn't allowed with textbook SoGA faults. A product should work with all of its features for a reasonable length of time. Whether the product breaks down or if the features are intentionally removed is irrelevant, as far as I'm concerned it's no longer as described!

You do raise a good point when mentioning the Xbox Live debacle. It might be reasonable to expect that online access like the PSN actually means "Online access while Sony provide it" and "Online access while you abide by reasonable T&C", so there might not be a SoGA breach from that alone. However I do not think you can say such a term is implied with non-online features like Other OS, Blu Ray or PS3 games in general - especially Blu-Ray. So IMO, as soon as a Blu-Ray exists that requires 3.21 then there's a SoGA breach. Update and you lose Other OS, don't update and you've lost Blu-Ray.

I don't suppose you ever played the original Sims. You could buy a toilet with a 56k modem built in. Imagine if they remotely disabled the toilet using that just because they felt like it! No way would that stick with SoGA.