PS3 Owner Gets Partial Refund for Lack of "Other OS" Option
- Thread starter Austin MacKenzie
- Start date
I was thinking that too? It's not that rare.Digikid said:
And really what functions have they added? Worthless things like the facebook app? How about the most worthless features from the other consoles like Homiis and achievement trophies?
Actual cool features like custom soundtrack and video capture are left to the devs to implement and they hardly ever do. In fact I can count on one hand the amount of games I have with custom soundtracks and/or video capture. The only one that has both is Noby Noby Boy. WTF?
Yea as a ps3 owner and a consumer rights advocate, friends usually come to me to ask what the ps3 has to offer over the 360. The thing is that now MS has finally fixed the rrod and sony keeps taking features away from the ps3, I can't in good conscience recommend it anymore.
I'm thinking about switching to the 360 myself at least with that I can use custom soundtracks with any game I want.
Digikid said:LOL!!!!!!! True.....if you take it to an extreme that is.BehattedWanderer said:
Life's not fun until you drop things out the eXtreme! of windows. Btw, those are my two primary standards of 'does everything', with a list of about 5 others that go under 'secondary'. If they're electronic, my favorite test is the "impact of a golf club", and my other favorite is the "motherboard immersed in corn syrup, left on a pile of ants until clean and re-inserted" test. Actually, they're all quite fun...like trying to grow a potato inside of an old computer.
Sony can write whatever the hell they like in their terms and conditions about what "rights they reserve".
It doesn't change the fact that their product now no-longer meets the advertised specification. It's a violation of consumer law and essentially "false advertising". In addition, it is mentioned nowhere on the product's outer packaging about Sony reserving the right to remove features at will.
Sony's misconduct can be viewed from the point of view of false-advertising, or from the point of view of knowingly and willingly damaging others' property, by rendering products incapable of functioning as specified on purchase.
Either way, Sony have committed criminal acts with this update.
What if Sony were to release an update making PS3s incapable of playing any games, because they "reserved the right" to remove features, attempting to boost sales of the inevitable PS4?
The principle is exactly the same, as is the legal situation.
I speak as a PS3 owner who has never had any intention of installing an OS, but is disturbed at the precedent it sets. Sony needs to be reminded of it's place, and reminded that the black obelisks sitting in bedrooms across the world belong to gamers, not to them.
I fail to see of what benefit removing this feature could have brought to the "majority of users". Furthermore, they have no right to manipulate other people's property "to prevent access to unauthorised or pirated content" regardless of what's written in their terms and conditions. If there is an issue with piracy, it's up to the Courts and Police to sort it out.
It doesn't change the fact that their product now no-longer meets the advertised specification. It's a violation of consumer law and essentially "false advertising". In addition, it is mentioned nowhere on the product's outer packaging about Sony reserving the right to remove features at will.
Sony's misconduct can be viewed from the point of view of false-advertising, or from the point of view of knowingly and willingly damaging others' property, by rendering products incapable of functioning as specified on purchase.
Either way, Sony have committed criminal acts with this update.
What if Sony were to release an update making PS3s incapable of playing any games, because they "reserved the right" to remove features, attempting to boost sales of the inevitable PS4?
The principle is exactly the same, as is the legal situation.
I speak as a PS3 owner who has never had any intention of installing an OS, but is disturbed at the precedent it sets. Sony needs to be reminded of it's place, and reminded that the black obelisks sitting in bedrooms across the world belong to gamers, not to them.
I fail to see of what benefit removing this feature could have brought to the "majority of users". Furthermore, they have no right to manipulate other people's property "to prevent access to unauthorised or pirated content" regardless of what's written in their terms and conditions. If there is an issue with piracy, it's up to the Courts and Police to sort it out.
Well, I bought my PS3 used so I can't get any money from Amazon, but I hope more people do this so that Sony removing the Other OS feature turns into a problem for Sony and not for us.
Blizzaga19 said:As stated in all the documents that come with the console and in many other companies terms of use.Austin MacKenzie said:PS3 Owner Gets Partial Refund for Lack of "Other OS" Option
A user's complaint over the lack of "Other OS" option for his PS3 has earned him a 20 percent refund from Amazon.
Sony's removal of the <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/99499-Sony-Removes-Other-OS-Option-for-PS3>Other OS feature sparked some anger, but one PS3 owner decided to turn it to his advantage by getting his money back from Amazon. Citing European law, he was able to persuade Amazon that a refund was in order, an argument that may be usable by other gamers.
The gamer, who goes by the name <a href=http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=20573361&postcount=2059>iapetus and moderates the NeoGAF forum claimed his PlayStation 3 no longer lived up to the advertised specifications. The console, which was well out of both the warranty and the 30-day Amazon guarantee, was deemed by Amazon to be eligible for a partial refund. Under this ruling, any number of other gamers could make the same claim, which could prove quite costly.
Sony has since issued an apology about the removal of the feature, but have cited their right to revise the console's settings in order to prevent piracy.
Sony has released an official statement apologizing for the issue, but remaining firm on their right to institute the change.
"We are sorry if users of Linux or other operating systems are disappointed by our decision to issue a firmware upgrade which when installed disables this operating system feature. We have made the decision to protect the integrity of the console and whilst mindful of the impact on Linux or other operating system users we nevertheless felt it would be in the best interests of the majority of users to pursue this course of action.
'As you will be aware we have upgraded and enhanced functionality and features of the console by numerous firmware upgrades over time and this is a very rare instance where a feature will be disabled. Further enhancements are in the pipeline.
'Users do have the choice whether to install the firmware upgrade and this is clearly explained to them at the time the firmware upgrade is made available for installation. Furthermore our terms and conditions clearly state that we have the right to revise the PS3's settings and features in order to prevent access to unauthorised or pirated content,"
If more gamers jump on this legal bandwagon, things could get pretty messy. Amazon will likely defer these expenses to Sony if things get too bad, and if that is the case, Sony may have to either reinstate the Other OS feature or enter a lengthy court battle about the proceedings to resolve the issue. Sony is clear in their statement that the firmware update is a choice, but refusing the update also cripple's the PlayStation 3's online capability, so its hard to say whether that will hold water in court.
Source: PlayStation University
Permalink
Sony have the right to change or otherwise modify the console without prior notice
That wasn't a direct quote bu that is along the lines of what it says. Sony are well within their rights here to remove the option.
I believe there are laws and precedents which protect consumers from that. Basically the consumer has little access to these documents before the purchase therefore the terms specified are null in light of other laws. I only know some basics of law, so I don?t know how reliable this is.
OK, so I have to wonder, what happens to all the scientific communities that were using a PS3 for their research? Does this completley screw them over, or can they just skip the upgrade?
They don't have a legal leg to stand on, advertised features are advertised features, even if it's a minor feature only used by a minority of the users, removing it means the device no longer preforms it's function as advertised at time of sale, this has nothing to do with warranties at all.
No judge would rule in Sony's favour no matter what excuse they come up with, either the user installs the update and loses access to the other OS feature, or they don't and lose access to PSN, so either way they lose access to a feature they were promised at time of sale.
IANAL
No judge would rule in Sony's favour no matter what excuse they come up with, either the user installs the update and loses access to the other OS feature, or they don't and lose access to PSN, so either way they lose access to a feature they were promised at time of sale.
IANAL
OS is just a shortening for "Operating System"; basically the OS is what is used to control the various functions of a computer, like Windows, Linux, the PS3's default system, etc. Whereas people have had the option to use Linux to control their PS3, that option has now been taken away from them (at least if they want their PS3 to connect to the internet).tonyl said:
OT: I'm not intimately familiar with advertising laws and their various subclauses, but it sounds as though this could spell certain disaster for Sony. I personally have never had the desire or need to use Linux, but what do I know? I use my PS3 to play videogames...
I'm inclined to agree with s69-5; while they did discontinue the line of PS3 with BC, the more recent versions have never claimed to be able to play PS2 games, and they have never released a firmware update that disables this feature in the older BC console. If you're having problems playing PS2 games on a legitimate original BC console, I'd give Sony a call or jump on the forums. If it is a personal issue, it would be best to jump on the problem ASAP, in case such a problem spreads to other aspects of the console's programming.s69-5 said:
Thank you for explaining lol i feel dumber now cuz i know what an operating system is but.......id how Os slipped me lol but thx fro the infoAndronicus said:
really? a refund? really? I know its freaking linux, but was it really used more than the actual ps3 os? I mean, if it was then all power to ya good job, but still was is worth it? And got sony to apologize? wow this guy must have had some persistence to get the attention of sony and to get them to apologizes for something they did for their own good. Good on ya.