PS3 'OtherOS' Scandal: Sony 1, Customers 0

[newtekie1]

for sure

All of the documentation that came with the PS3 is archived on Sony's site here.

You're welcome to look through it and try to find any mention of OtherOS. It wasn't on the packaging either, AFAIK. It isn't on my launch 60GB's box or my 80GB 3rd gen Fat unit's box.

The simple fact is that Sony did not advertise this feature. They provided basic support for its use and that is it.

 

[Easy Rhino]

my ps3 manual includes otheros installation procedure. but it was never advertised.

 

[erocker]

I'm still waiting for more games that utilize my light-gun for my Sega Master System. Sega 1, erocker 0. They even advertised it, where's the uproar?!!!

 

[Disparia]

my ps3 manual includes otheros installation procedure. but it was never advertised.

Does it say this?

According to the manual, when Sony Computer Entertainment designed the PS3, "it was fully intended that you, a PS3 owner, could play games, watch movies, view photos, listen to music, and run a full-featured Linux operating system that transforms your PS3 into a home computer."

CnP from Gamespot article.

 

[OneCool]

The thing that irritates me the most out of this whole ordeal is that now you can buy a product which could later, through modification by the manufacturer/distributor, be changed into a different product after sale.

Regardless of your views of Sony and OtherOS; that above is worthy of contemplation as other companies plot more ways to bend the rules in their favour based on this ruling.

Well if you look at the original PS3 to the now PS3 "slim" its a entirely different machine internally.
As for the "OtherOS" option.It was a selling point for me when I bought mine but i dont miss it At the time the only distros available to install on would only use 1 of the Cells cores not all 7.
But im not taking up for Sony.... pretty much hated them when they added Cinavia DRM Protection play back. MOTHERF&#@^&%

 

[Easy Rhino]

I'm still waiting for more games that utilize my light-gun for my Sega Master System. Sega 1, erocker 0. They even advertised it, where's the uproar?!!!

evil corporations are rolling over you!!!!!!1

Does it say this?



CnP from Gamespot article.

ill check when i get home.

 

[devguy]

The reason things slide by here is that because the PS3 is "licensed" to a consumer; you agree to the terms in the End User License Agreement. However, if we actually owned the product, what they did might be illegal. Imagine a car you purchased has some feature (might not've been there when the car first launched, but was available and noted in the manual when you purchased it), and then the manufacturer comes and disables/removes that feature after the sale. That would be something you could easily sue for and win. But that is not the case here.

The question though, is how far can a company's actions go in a EULA? I've mentioned an example like this before, but say the PS3 EULA says that if you put an Xbox 360 disc in your PS3, that they will come and steal your TV, and shoot you in the leg. Now, you purchase a PS3, and boot it up, and agree blindly to the EULA so you can start playing with it. One day, you accidentally put a 360 game in the drive, and some people take your TV and shoot you in the leg. Should you be able to pick a lawsuit against this action, even though you agreed to it?

The sad part is, GeoHot got into PS3 otherOS hacking because Sony refused to allow access to the RSX and other nice hardware features to otherOS. Sony had their reasons for doing so (even though I understand them, I highly disagree with all of them), but that is what prompted the effort in the first place. Then, after removing the feature from older PS3s, after clearly stating they weren't going to do so, that got a whole ton of people (smart, hacking people - ie not the kind of people you want to piss off) to target the PS3, and the rest is history.

 

[qubit]

The question though, is how far can a company's actions go in a EULA?

Your post brings up some good points, especially the quote above. Let's take a less extreme example, because shooting people is obviously illegal!

So, the EULA states that if you don't use the PS3 as intended, they will completely disable all the software on it. Is this still legal? You've just paid good money for a door stop. What about if they permanently disable networking functionality, or the Blu-ray drive or some other thing? Where's the line? It's not quite so clear cut, is it?

Hence, one can argue that the OtherOS feature should not have been disabled either, given that Jizzler's post said: "According to the manual, when Sony Computer Entertainment designed the PS3, "it was fully intended that you, a PS3 owner, could play games, watch movies, view photos, listen to music, and run a full-featured Linux operating system that transforms your PS3 into a home computer.

Hence, it's not quite the undocumented feature that newtekie thought, which makes a significant difference.

I wouldn't be surprised if Ventura appeals. If I'd spent the better part of two years fighting this, I'd be really pissed off and I would be likely to. In fact, why did a dismissal take so long in the first place?

And as someone else said some posts back, this is bigger than Sony, because other companies are gonna look at this and see what they can get away with. Overall, this was a bad day for consumer rights.

 

[devguy]

And as someone else said some posts back, this is bigger than Sony, because other companies are gonna look at this and see what they can get away with. Overall, this was a bad day for consumer rights.

QFT

What some of you guys are missing is that this isn't just about losing access to a feature used by some < 1% of buyers (thus making the consensus be a resounding "who really cares"). It's about setting precedent over these consumer rights.

And sure, shooting people is illegal, but my point was that Sony can do something illegal (albeit to a lesser extreme) simply because the product was licensed rather than sold (and the license was agreed to by the consumer of course).

 

[Solaris17]

Well if you look at the original PS3 to the now PS3 "slim" its a entirely different machine internally.

what?

 

[rangerone766]

i'm a little confused here. what you guy's are saying, is that no-one "owns" a ps3, they are just licensing it from sony. therefor sony can turn on and off features of this item at will? or completely disable its functionality when they release the new model.

i'm glad i don't do consoles.

 

[qubit]

i'm a little confused here. what you guy's are saying, is that no-one "owns" a ps3, they are just licensing it from sony. therefor sony can turn on and off features of this item at will? or completely disable its functionality when they release the new model.

i'm glad i don't do consoles.

You own the physical hardware of the PS3, but not any of the software, therefore they have you over a barrel.

Unfortunately, most software agreements are similar to this, except that companies are normally mindful of pissing off their customers by removing features and are keen to maintain good PR. These are two things that arrogant Sony obviously don't give a flying fig about.

 

[CDdude55]

In the end as long as my PS3 can play twisted metal when it comes out next year, then i'm good.

 

[newtekie1]

And sure, shooting people is illegal, but my point was that Sony can do something illegal (albeit to a lesser extreme) simply because the product was licensed rather than sold (and the license was agreed to by the consumer of course).

Actually, it would seem they've done nothing illegal. The features of any console, or software for that matter, are not guaranteed to always work and be supported. If so, Sony would be required to keep PSN going forever, and that isn't realistic. Game companies would be required to keep multi-player servers up and available forever, and that is unrealistic as well. That is why they can discontinue any feature of the PS3 at any time if they choose to no longer support it and why everyone words their ToS to allow it.

Unfortunately, most software agreements are similar to this, except that companies are normally mindful of pissing off their customers by removing features and are keen to maintain good PR. These are two things that arrogant Sony obviously don't give a flying fig about.

No they aren't, software companies(especially game companies) disable features all the time. And a lot of software companys at the best only guarantee the features for so long, then they can disable them at any time. Intuit is legendary for this.

 

[rangerone766]

In the end as long as my PS3 can play twisted metal when it comes out next year, then i'm good.

twisted metal on the ps1 was one of the best games ever!!!!

 

[newtekie1]

twisted metal on the ps1 was one of the best games ever!!!!

Twisted Metal 2 was freakin' amazing! I lost so much time to that game! Camping on the eiffel tower to kill people when they teleported up was so much fun and then blowing up the tower!

 

[OneCool]

what?

Well not in function but in layout,looks and quality.

original ps3 vs slim mobo

plus the cooling system,hardrive connection,psu has all changed (some 2 or 3 times)