Sony asks gamers to sign new terms or face PSN ban

[qubit]

I'm so glad I don't have a PS3. :shadedshu

Another typical anti-consumer move by a big corporation to screw you over with. They're very obviously taking advantage of their size and financial clout to prevent the little guy from nailing them over security breaches. Nice one.

 

[HossHuge]

Both are in it for themselves and not the people they represent.
.

And lets not forget about the news organizations. I wonder which country Geroge Orwell was thinking about when he wrote 1984?

 

[newtekie1]

If you don't opt in this new agreement and there is a new firmware that fixes....I don't know....let's say....the blue ring of death (I know, very original)....then a PSN subscriber won't be able to download the new update to fix whatever the PS3 is having an issue with....? Is that how it's going to be Sony? OK.....I'm GLAD I don't have 1.

Firmwares can be downloaded directly from Sony's website and installed via flashdrive, no PSN access required, not that you need a PSN account to download firmware directly on the PS3 either. Educate yourself before making comments about something you admittedly don't own.

Yea cuz suing Sony individually is cheap...

I wish this were illegal of them to do. This basically prevents middle class people and below to be able to take action against Sony (worth more than 1500$) unless they borrow money and put their life savings into legal fees. Only the rich can protect themselves, fuck the rest right?

Have you ever been in a class action lawsuit? Because I have, and despite getting settlements of millions of dollars, the most I ever saw was ~$100, and that is typical of class action lawsuits. You are way better off taking it to small claims.

Just think how many people are going out today to buy a PS3 not knowing this info. Seems to me it should be placed on the box somewhere so you understand what your getting yourself into. Corporations rule the world now not politicians.

Every single one of them knows this info. It is presented to them right when they turn the unit on and create a PSN account. If they don't like it, they can box it back up and take it right back to where they bought it for a refund.

How many of them do you think are going to do that though? My guess is 0.

Now my question to all of you that are saying you are glad you don't have a PS3 or think this is a bad move on Sony's part is. Do you own an Xbox 360 and have a Live account?

Because here are some gems from the Live ToS:

We do not guarantee the suitability, reliability, availability, accuracy or timeliness of information available from the Service, or that the Service will be uninterrupted, secure, error-free or that data loss will not occur.

Translation = Security, we don't have any, but you know that now so we are off the hook if your data gets stolen.

You can recover from us for all successful claims only direct damages up to a total amount equal to your Service fee for one month. You cannot recover any other damages, including consequential, special, indirect, incidental, or punitive damages and lost profits.

If you sue us, for any reason, even if we gave away your social security number and credit cards directly to criminals on purpose, the most you can sue us for is about $8. Good like fuckers!

I think those two are faaaaaar worse than Sony saying you can't file class action lawsuits against them but you can still sue individually. No?

Not a fan of Xbox Live, ok lets look at Steam:

IN NO EVENT WILL VALVE BE LIABLE FOR ANY INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, SPECIAL, PUNITIVE, EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, OR ANY OTHER DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF OR IN ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH STEAM, THE SOFTWARE, MERCHANDISE THAT YOU ACQUIRE VIA STEAM, ANY INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, OR THE DELAY OR INABILITY TO USE MERCHANDISE OR ANY INFORMATION, EVEN IN THE EVENT OF FAULT, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF CONTRACT, OR BREACH OF VALVE'S WARRANTY AND EVEN IF VALVE HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.

Translation = We can't be held liable for anything, even if we know about the security issue and do nothing about it. Hell, we can advertise to all the hackers how to exploit the security hole(that would be negligence) so they can steal all your account info, and we still can't be held liable for damage. Holy shit, that is MUCH worse than "you can still sue us, just not in a class action"!

Don't like Steam? Ok, what about WoW. Everyone plays WoW, right?

IN NO EVENT SHALL BLIZZARD, ITS PARENT, SUBSIDIARIES, LICENSORS OR AFFILIATES BE LIABLE FOR ANY INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, PUNITIVE, LIQUIDATED, OR OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, WHETHER UNDER CONTRACT, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), STRICT LIABILITY OR ANY OTHER THEORY OF LIABILITY, ARISING FROM YOUR USE OF THE GAME OR THE SERVICE.

Translation = Pretty much the same as Steam. They can walk down the street, handing out your credit card info to every person they pass, and you can't do a thing. Suddenly, Sony's ToS doesn't seem to bad...

 

[digibucc]

Because here are some gems from the Live ToS:

Not a fan of Xbox Live, ok lets look at Steam:

Don't like Steam? Ok, what about WoW. Everyone plays WoW, right?

perfect post, all of it .

 

[HossHuge]

I think everyone gets your point newtekie1. But doesn't the fact that when you bought into the PSN network they had a certain poilcy that you agreed with and now they are changing it account for anything?

You quoted Steam, X-box Live and WoW's policy's but I wonder what Sony's policy was before and after this major hacking occured?

Personally, I don't give a poopoo cause I have never bought anything online with a credit card. I'm not sure if you can do this in other countries but here in Taiwan you have the option of paying through your bank machine.

 

[AphexDreamer]

"Sony is preparing to ban gamers from the PlayStation Network (PSN) unless you the PSN account owner give Sony your soul and bend over to take it in the rear whenever Sony deems it necessary."

By reading that you automatically accepted our terms of agreement. Thank you, Sony.

 

[v12dock]

and 99% of users will sign it without looking over it and without thinking twice... like myself

 

[HossHuge]

and 99% of users will sign it without looking over it and without thinking twice... like myself

Not only that but think of all the people who don't speak the same langauge that the contract comes in.

 

[Volkszorn88]

Glad I game on pc.

 

[n-ster]

Because here are some gems from the Live ToS:

Translation = Security, we don't have any, but you know that now so we are off the hook if your data gets stolen.

If you sue us, for any reason, even if we gave away your social security number and credit cards directly to criminals on purpose, the most you can sue us for is about $8. Good like fuckers!

I think those two are faaaaaar worse than Sony saying you can't file class action lawsuits against them but you can still sue individually. No?

Not a fan of Xbox Live, ok lets look at Steam:

Translation = We can't be held liable for anything, even if we know about the security issue and do nothing about it. Hell, we can advertise to all the hackers how to exploit the security hole(that would be negligence) so they can steal all your account info, and we still can't be held liable for damage. Holy shit, that is MUCH worse than "you can still sue us, just not in a class action"!

Don't like Steam? Ok, what about WoW. Everyone plays WoW, right?

Translation = Pretty much the same as Steam. They can walk down the street, handing out your credit card info to every person they pass, and you can't do a thing. Suddenly, Sony's ToS doesn't seem to bad...

wow The media like bashing Sony more than the others

Glad I game on pc.

Have you read the ToS of Steam and WoW?

 

[Jetster]

I haven't bought anything Sony since the Walkman. But the move is not that unusual these days. But you have to ask what are they afraid of? What could they do to piss off every customer? It is suspicious

 

[n-ster]

I haven't bought anything Sony since the Walkman. But the move is not that unusual these days. But you have to ask what are they afraid of?

Pro-hackers?

 

[Frick]

I think everyone gets your point newtekie1. But doesn't the fact that when you bought into the PSN network they had a certain poilcy that you agreed with and now they are changing it account for anything?

There is probably bits in the EULA about this as well.

 

[Jetster]

And hackers would sue them why? When they ban them all probably

 

[Jaffakeik]

I agreed with them because i dont care about that, nothing will change anyways so I dont get why you so worried about it?

 

[RejZoR]

This sounds just the same as: "Agree to our terms or we'll blow your hamster's head off". Just wrapped in nicer words.

 

[n-ster]

And hackers would sue them why? When they ban them all probably

no, the hackers could target Sony again, and perhaps steal info, and Sony doesn't want a class action against them because of that?

As newtekie said, other ToS are similar, and in fact worse! If Sony is "blow hamster's head off" others are what? "chop hamster alive and insert them in your ahole... With the knife that was used to chop him up" ?

 

[MRCL]

Huh. Well okay *goes to play on his PS3*

PSN doesn't have my credit card number, and even if it did and it would get hacked again or whatnot, hell I don't care its a prepaid credit card, you can only withdraw as much as there's loaded on the card. Which isn't very much because I rarely use it. You think I'd be so stupid and give everyone a credit card number that is tied to my main account with millions of dollars on it?

My personal information, well if you want to know where I live, it takes two minutes searching a phonebook.

All in all you people who scream "LAWSUIT NAO" every time they change a pixel in the loading screen are over-reacting big time. Actually all those whose first thought is to sue them (just in case, you know) are idiots. Sorry, but you lawsuit-fetish guys always ruin everything for the rest of us.

 

[exodusprime1337]

No really, it is hidden in most terms of services. And it is just the right to sue collectively, AKA bring up a class action lawsuit, you can still sue them individually.



Not really, anything you've purchased of PSN is downloaded and installed on your system, and doesn't require PSN to play. There might be some multiplayer loss, but again that is your choice by not opting-in.

And frankly, anyone that would even think about sueing over a security breach is brain dead anyway, IMO. It would be like sueing because a bank go robbed and one of the robbers stole a stack of papers with people's credit card info. Shit happens, that is why you be careful with what infomation you put out there. AFAIK, it wasn't like Sony completely ignored security leaving a big open hole for the hackers to get in, so it would be hard to prove Sony is at fault anyway. But besides that, the fact that Sony offered every customer a year free of identity theft protection is far more of a positive than this minor ToS change is a negative, yet somehow seems to get far less credit...

It's not really hidden in anything that has it, and many contracts have a no sue policy, it's quite common. It's a misnomer saying that it's hidden, mostly because you're implying that most people don't read the contract in full. Technically it's in plain sight, people are just too lazy to read the whole thing, or if they do; too stupid to understand it. I worked for bank of america for 7 years, and they are the worst at crazy contracts, so bad they actually changed their business model when they started catching flack for it.

My opinion on things like this is simple. PSN is a free service, you voluntarily use it, they say hey don't sue us if we get hacked. I think that's a valid argument for them to make, it's not buried, in fact it's apparently front page news at many tech sites, so i'm sure people will see it. If i were a company that had a large portion of my business wrapped up in a free online service, i wouldn't want to be sued for something i might not be able to predict or prevent. That's bullshit. Just like banks don't insure stocks/bonds/ira's and the like. It's a best effort environment but if your stock drops 95% and you go broke, i don't want to be responsible for your shortcomings.

 

[Jetster]

Now a days you could say you just clicked the icon and didn't read it. Its a valid defense. Does anyone actually read those agreements?

 

[FordGT90Concept]

...

At least none of the above insist that you forfeit your right to sue. They try to limit their responsibility in the event that they are sued. What this allows Sony to do is send you nasty letters the moment you filled your case which, unless you got an excellent lawyer, is enough to make most people withdrawl their case (especially small claims).

In the case of the rest, it could go to court and you're far more likely to see judges rule that clause that limits claims as unjust thusly, rewarding whatever the court determines is fair (e.g. all subscription fees as opposed to one month).

Microsoft is allowing you to at least get your foot in the door where Sony simply wants to crush every foot it sees before it can find a door.


FYI, I don't have an Xbox360, I don't have a Live account (do have Games for Windows Live account though), don't have WoW, and I do have a Steam account but, for reasons in the ToS, I've spent less than $10 on anything from them, total.


Oh, and also FYI, those statements of liability never hold water in a court. If people paid for a service and the service is not rendered, it's fraudlent. Doesn't matter what they claim in a ToS, it violates consumer laws which takes precedent over contracts (which ToS are). It is essentially unlawful for them to deny responsibility for everything under the sun and I imagine the same would be true of Sony's terms as well--assuming a case got to court.

Now a days you could say you just clicked the icon and didn't read it. Its a valid defense. Does anyone actually read those agreements?

Only if you can prove you were incapable of reading it and/or incapable of understanding what was contained within (e.g. a minor).

 

[newtekie1]

I think everyone gets your point newtekie1. But doesn't the fact that when you bought into the PSN network they had a certain poilcy that you agreed with and now they are changing it account for anything?

You quoted Steam, X-box Live and WoW's policy's but I wonder what Sony's policy was before and after this major hacking occured?

Personally, I don't give a poopoo cause I have never bought anything online with a credit card. I'm not sure if you can do this in other countries but here in Taiwan you have the option of paying through your bank machine.

No it doesn't account for anything, you have the option to agree or not with the ne policy. Policies change all the time and you have to re-agree to the newversions before you continue use.

 

[newtekie1]

At least none of the above insist that you forfeit your right to sue. They try to limit their responsibility in the event that they are sued. What this allows Sony to do is send you nasty letters the moment you filled your case which, unless you got an excellent lawyer, is enough to make most people withdrawl their case (especially small claims).

In the case of the rest, it could go to court and you're far more likely to see judges rule that clause that limits claims as unjust thusly, rewarding whatever the court determines is fair (e.g. all subscription fees as opposed to one month).

Microsoft is allowing you to at least get your foot in the door where Sony simply wants to crush every foot it sees before it can find a door.


FYI, I don't have an Xbox360, I don't have a Live account (do have Games for Windows Live account though), don't have WoW, and I do have a Steam account but, for reasons in the ToS, I've spent less than $10 on anything from them, total.


Oh, and also FYI, those statements of liability never hold water in a court. If people paid for a service and the service is not rendered, it's fraudlent. Doesn't matter what they claim in a ToS, it violates consumer laws which takes precedent over contracts (which ToS are). It is essentially unlawful for them to deny responsibility for everything under the sun and I imagine the same would be true of Sony's terms as well--assuming a case got to court.



Only if you can prove you were incapable of reading it and/or incapable of understanding what was contained within (e.g. a minor).

The usually do hold up in court in terms of liability if information is stolen. They sometimes don't hold up if the service isn't rendered, but that isn't really the point of why I posted those.

They might not forfiet your right to sue, but sony doesn't do that either, but live limits you ability to sue for more that $8, so no class action for them. And no real lawyer will touch any of the others with limited liability statements like that in their agreement.

 

[Frick]

I just don't understand why people are so trigger-happy on suing things. You think Sony, or anyone else, likes to be the targets of hackers? Probably not. But still, you have a problem with somethine, anything? Here's your chance to be rich.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

The usually do hold up in court in terms of liability if information is stolen. They sometimes don't hold up if the service isn't rendered, but that isn't really the point of why I posted those.

They might not forfiet your right to sue, but sony doesn't do that either, but live limits you ability to sue for more that $8, so no class action for them. And no real lawyer will touch any of the others with limited liability statements like that in their agreement.

If you were a company that required PSN to make money and PSN goes down causing tens of thousands of dollars worth of losses to your company, you bet your ass their going to sue--that clause isn't going to stop them and likely, the court will take the plaintiff's damages (as long as they can prove it) over the defendants ToS. It doesn't matter how wordy the ToS, it rarely holds water unless the plantiff wrote it and the defendant agreed to it.