PS3 , Removal of other os . Mis- sold

mikey72

My point is that once you modify it, it's no longer the shop's responsibility, as you and sony have changed a product they sold you in good faith, and which worked until the customer modified it. If you didn't change it, and it no longer worked, that would be different.

DrScotsman

mikey72 wrote: »

My point is that once you modify it, it's no longer the shop's responsibility, as you and sony have changed a product they sold you in good faith, and which worked until the customer modified it. If you didn't change it, and it no longer worked, that would be different.

We've already established that if you don't change it then it WILL no longer work. You cannot access PSN (although I already conceded that it might be hard to argue that SoGA-wise), and at some point there'll be a game or Blu-Ray that requires the new software.

If not updating didn't end up crippling the console by way of disabling PSN or new Blu-Rays/games, then - it'd be a stretch I'll admit - but I'd attempt to argue that being able to update the console to get new features is part of being fit for purpose. It'd be really convenient if it says that somewhere on the box actually.

I do see your point about good faith but at least with respect to my first paragraph it's simply not good enough.

mikey72

Well, if you complain that linux doesn't work, and the shop repair it by rolling the software back to a previous version that does, and is then as they sold it, they've repaired it then.
You'll then have to go back to complain the old software won't play the new games anyway.

DrScotsman

mikey72 wrote: »

Well, if you complain that linux doesn't work, and the shop repair it by rolling the software back to a previous version that does, and is then as they sold it, they've repaired it then.
You'll then have to go back to complain the old software won't play the new games anyway.

I'm sorry but I must be confused here, doesn't that support my point that the retailer is liable?

If the shop offer the software roll back as a solution then inform them that they would be rendering it not fit for purpose in another way. Then they should offer another remedy.

custardy

DrScotsman wrote: »

We've already established that if you don't change it then it WILL no longer work. You cannot access PSN (although I already conceded that it might be hard to argue that SoGA-wise), and at some point there'll be a game or Blu-Ray that requires the new software.

If not updating didn't end up crippling the console by way of disabling PSN or new Blu-Rays/games, then - it'd be a stretch I'll admit - but I'd attempt to argue that being able to update the console to get new features is part of being fit for purpose. It'd be really convenient if it says that somewhere on the box actually.

I do see your point about good faith but at least with respect to my first paragraph it's simply not good enough.

dont see much on the list TBH

http://media.ps3scene.com/images/ps3-eu-launch-unit/02.jpg

RobertoMoir

mikey72 wrote: »

My point is that once you modify it, it's no longer the shop's responsibility, as you and sony have changed a product they sold you in good faith, and which worked until the customer modified it. If you didn't change it, and it no longer worked, that would be different.

Using that logic, what do you think the position of a shop would be if someone purchased a PS3 to play games and use the Linux feature who then returned it when a firmware update was released?

What would the position of a shop be if someone just wanted to play games purchased a PS3, was required to update firmware to play current games and instead opted to return the machine?

In the second case, the retailer could accept the machine for "repair", update the firmware themselves and return it "fixed", but would the shops have the mechanism / resources to handle this?

In the first case, I'd say the owner certainly has a complaint, and one that can't really be resolved by repair or replacement of the machine, leaving the other part of the SOGA "triangle" as the only resort.

Funar

I was a bit !!!!!! off too when Sony pulled support for Linux. I was surprised they had it there in the first place. Perhaps it was to take away a major reason for hackers to crack the protection. I'm not sure where I stand on the mis-selling question but I definitely sympathise with the original poster and agree that without Other OS on the phat, the Slim is a far far better option.

In reality it was never going to be good enough for a desktop replacement because of the lack of RAM and the fact that they force the OS to run in an abstraction layer to keep developers away from the hardware, especially the graphics hardware. The switching to and from the Other OS was also too fiddly and slow. Now if someone had ported a frugal distro like tinycore then that would have been quite exciting.

mikey72

RobertoMoir wrote: »

Using that logic, what do you think the position of a shop would be if someone purchased a PS3 to play games and use the Linux feature who then returned it when a firmware update was released?

What would the position of a shop be if someone just wanted to play games purchased a PS3, was required to update firmware to play current games and instead opted to return the machine?

In the second case, the retailer could accept the machine for "repair", update the firmware themselves and return it "fixed", but would the shops have the mechanism / resources to handle this?

In the first case, I'd say the owner certainly has a complaint, and one that can't really be resolved by repair or replacement of the machine, leaving the other part of the SOGA "triangle" as the only resort.

One for the courts then, as sony also have changed the rules. If the machine will play the games it could play, with the original software in the machine, it works.
If sony change the software, or introduce new games that don't work, or lock you out of their psn by a change in their rules, the supplier can't force sony to do anything. The box still works, just banned from the sony end. It'll be an interesting case.

mikey72

Looking at custardy's picture
if you follow the link on the software licence on the box, you've already agreed to loss of functionallity anyway.
http://www.scei.co.jp/ps3-eula/ps3_eula_en.html

Arg

If Sony said they can take all your money whenever they please halfway through the contract does that mean they can?

OlliesDad wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl:

They aren't tampering with your property (unless they break into your home to uninstall the function). By this logic, all software should be supported forever and no updates should ever be released.

The update is optional, so by updating you are authorising the removal.

Don't daft.The update is far from optional as others have pointed out.
It's like taking your pet to the vet for a routine checkup only to find out he's gone and neutered it.
It's like having a gas engineer check your boiler only to tamper with it against your wishes because it was part of the manufacturers business strategy.