PlayStation®3 Support

[EmperorLawlight]

They paid the high price with their arrogance this generation - most gamers didn't bother with the high launch price. Now that they are gaining some respect back, they pull this BS update move. On top of that they don't even have any big games coming up any time soon. Well Sony, obviously, being in last place didn't teach you anything it seems but at least have someone comment on the situation.

[purplefreak3]

does this update really matter cause PS3 picked up sales after the slim was released and sold for $299 which slims never had OtherOS option to begin with.

[EmperorLawlight]

It matters in the way things are being done. You cannot just turn around and start removing features.

[jimmylr]

SONY cannot respond because they are greed, selfish and a liar. How can they explain it or addmit it to us if they will respond. Perhaps if they will safe their reputation then all they have to do is just give us back the Other OS and be responsible enough to repair all the PS 3 s that were damaged with the version 3.2.1 implementation.

[SpeedRacer1955]

Sony has explained to their satisfaction the reasons they needed to do this. But to many people are to young to believe them or even want to. The other OS was not a really advertised feature in any advertisement on TV or in print by Best Buy or others.

So people need to just get over the fact that Linux support is no longer available. Maybe if they allowed you to install Linux but don't call them about how to fix it if you screw up your system maybe you would like that better. No I thought not. They might have been tired of the calls from Illiterate computer users that can't even tell the difference between system RAM and HDD storage numbers.

[Dafrety]

---

SpeedRacer1955 wrote:
Sony has explained to their satisfaction the reasons they needed to do this. But to many people are to young to believe them or even want to. The other OS was not a really advertised feature in any advertisement on TV or in print by Best Buy or others.

---

It doesn't matter how advertised the feature was. The point is that it was advertised, and that it was a feature. Age has nothing to do with people's acceptance of getting trampled over by large corporations. Built in locks and a standard radio are hardly something you would expect to be advertised on a modern car, does that make it acceptable to take them away from someone after purchase?

---

SpeedRacer1955 wrote:
So people need to just get over the fact that Linux support is no longer available. Maybe if they allowed you to install Linux but don't call them about how to fix it if you screw up your system maybe you would like that better. No I thought not. They might have been tired of the calls from Illiterate computer users that can't even tell the difference between system RAM and HDD storage numbers.

---

Maybe I'm missing something, but when did they ever provide support for Linux installation? They gave you the option to set it up in Game OS and the information in the manual and website and that was it. If you needed help beyond that you had to ask either the PS3 or Linux communities, and that worked fine. Besides, I would think most people who new what Linux was and how to obtain it would know the difference between RAM and HDD capacity.

[thisranks]

It's a shame people aren't getting the bigger picture from this.

Sony did it for a reason. They have the right as per the ToU.

What should be the end of the story continues on way past it's 15 minutes.....

[Dafrety]

"Claim: Read the ToS/EULA! This provision X and Y states that they can do this and this!

Refuting Argument: The ToS/EULA does not supersede Federal Law. If Federal Law deems it illegal, the ToS/EULA doesn't have any legal foothold. As Jaecyn42 puts it simply:

THERE IS A HIERARCHY TO LAW:

FEDERAL LAW>STATE LAW>LOCAL ORDINANCES>PRIVATE CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENTS

(Protip: Notice the inequality signs)"

Try again, please.

[SG-17]

Here is the thing kids, Sony did not force you to install the update to remove OtherOS. Therefore they are well within the law. They cannot be prosecuted because YOU CHOOSE to update to 3.21.

If the update was mandatory, then yes they would be breaking the law. BUT IT ISN'T.

Get over this kids, or go to Microsoft. We don't need to see you whining in every other thread.

[Dafrety]

Sony however, does force you to choose between Other OS or PSN and newer games and movies. Both are advertised features of the PlayStation 3 phat systems. The update is mandatory. If it was optional then you would still be able to officially connect to PSN. You can't. Next "argument."

By the way, calling people kids and complaining that they're whining does not make your argument any stronger, nor does it make you the better person. If you don't like reading the "whining" then don't click on the threads about the update, it's just that simple.

Claim: Sony did not violate the law. Linux wasn't even a core feature! There's no false advertising or Bait and Switch. 

Refuting Argument:  Quoting Jaecyn42:

"The FTC defines "advertisement" as "any form of public notice however disseminated or utilized."  In this case, the second  Sony owned and maintained website, detailing how to install an alternate OS on a PS3.  In a legal sense, Other OS is an  advertisement feature of the applicable models of the Sony PS3."

  In simple English, when Sony put that Linux is available in the Operating Manual, it is a public notice to the consumer that the feature is readily available and can be used by you, the customer, who bought this product. So yes, explicitly or not, under the law, it was advertised.

Claim: But you have the option of choosing whether to keep the 'ability' to have Linux or not. 

Refuting Argument: This is where the issue of Bait and Switch comes in. Officially stated, it is as follows:

Sec. 238.4 Switch after sale.

  No practice should be pursued by an advertiser, in the event of sale of the advertised product, of "unselling" with the intent and  purpose of selling other merchandise in its stead. Among acts or practices which will be considered in determining if the initial  sale was in good faith, and not a stratagem to sell other merchandise, are:

  (a) Accepting a deposit for the advertised product, then switching the purchaser to a higher-priced product,

  (b) Failure to make delivery of the advertised product within a reasonable time or to make a refund,

  (c) Disparagement by acts or words of the advertised product, or the disparagement of the guarantee, credit terms, availability of service, repairs, or in any other respect, in connection with it,

  (d) The delivery of the advertised product which is defective, unusable or impractical for the purpose represented or  implied in the advertisement.

In simple English, this means you can't take away advertised functions (we established that Linux was an advertised function with the above refutation) at a later date. Now either way, choosing to install or not install doesn't matter. Either way, you lose an advertised functionality. 

      If you install you lose: Linux

      If you don't install, you lose: Ability to play any PS3 games and Blu-ray movies that require firmware 3.21 or higher.

                                                  Any further software support from Sony. 

Losing access or not to PSN is irrelevant seeing how that is a service and is not inherently part of the good that was advertised. Either way you lose one of these advertised features and your PS3 inevitably turns into a different product than what was once intended for it to be. (As in not once how it was advertised to be.). When you initially bought it, it was Product A. Now it has turned into Product B where it is essentially Product A with some advertised features removed. The wording of 'Optional' is just a guise in place of 'Mandatory if you value these functions of your PS3'.