PS3 Owner Gets Partial Refund for Lack of "Other OS" Option

[chris11246]

Im sure somewhere in the EULA there's a clause that allows them to do that. I read one recently that said that I don't own the software I downloaded I just have a license for it which means they can probably do whatever they want to change it.

 

[zelda2fanboy]

What a ****. Just goes to show you, a person can get anything he wants out of a reputable retailer by acting like a jerk. I put up with this crap all day long. Most likely, his story is a load of fanboy lies he's concocting to create a faux controversy.

 

[arealperson]

- snip

Definitely not. Like that time they didn't take away support for third party memory peripherals because some British company was producing much better ones than Microsoft. I remember that never happening very clearly.

While Digikid may be in the wrong on the backwards compatibility issue, Sony isn't squeaky clean on memory peripherals. Hint: Try looking up MagicGate. I know this first-hand, as when trying to move my cousin's PS1 game-saves from his third-party card onto my PS3, we had to move all of the files from his card onto my first-party card with a Playstation (1) console. Luckily we had one handy, but he's had worse luck before. Including a third-party PS2 card that had 16 MB that stopped working. I criticized his trust in third-party cards at the time (not to mention cheap ones), but looking back it bites. I don't think I need to remind you of the exorbitant prices those cards are still priced at.

Edit: Concerning the backwards compatibility issue (sorry somewhat still off-topic), according to the Wikipedia page there were different methods of backwards compatibility, varying from region and model number. Not sure why it would be disabled for any of the models in any case. I would personally hope that Digikid's model is suffering some sort of error that can be fixed, as I'm hoping to get an older model sometime in the future to replace an inevitably bricked PS2.

Bonus OT: If this case does go to court, I'm no legal expert, but if I were the judge, I would rule in Sony's favor. The "Other OS" option isn't a prominent feature after all, and no officially (read:by Sony) sold PS3 came bundled with any other OS installed.

The Yellow Dog Linux group is undoubtedly going through some issues, and I'm glad Amazon was willing to be generous in their refund policy in this case. If any others have legitimate causal purchase claims, then more power to them, on an individual basis albeit.

 

[AceDiamond]

Sony have the right to change or otherwise modify the console without prior notice

That is known as an Unconsionable Clause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscionability exactly the same way as if Sony said "Buying the PS3 sells your children into slavery". Sony is taking advantage of its superior bargaining position to add provisions that are overwhelmingly in its favor.

Fortunately in the EU the consumer protection laws are more sane than in the US and corps that try this crap get slapped down occasionally.

Yeah over in America we apparently don't want to be protected as consumers even though we claim the customer is always right.

I'm a little unsure if this is actually a just thing to have happened, however, although it is certainly amusing.

 

[Nihilism_Is_Bliss]

this update seriously pissed me off.
'we're disabling other os with this update, so if you like other os then don't install the update...you just wont be able to use your ps3 for anything else apart from other os anymore'.

i'm seriously considering doing this to piss them off as much as possible, and maybe they'll give another update that adds it back in.

 

[GamingAwesome1]

That kid is smart.

I recommend people follow suit as taking features away from something when they've been advertised as such is a dick move.

 

[George Mooney]

So for this partial refund, can I just claim some money back, or do I actually need to give back the PS3 or something?

 

[Ninjamedic]

Maybe so but the ones that HAD the PS2X Chip still inside were neutered by firmware afterwards.

Even the 80GB ones that had PS2 compatibility software had that feature removed.

Add in Sonys false advertising about there console being able to do EVERYTHING ( which it does not ) and you got a recipe for being a lawsuit target.

I get what you are saying though.

I still have ps2 compatibility, why?

 

[wooty]

I didn't even know the PS3 had the "other OS" option until it popped up on this forum

 

[George Mooney]

Bull. PS2 Emulation? Sound familiar?

I was talking about this to a co-worker. He wanted to know what console to get. I told him 360 because at least Microsoft does not have false advertising and takes away promised features at their own will.

PS2 Emulation wasn't removing an advertised feature. They created a new model which wouldn't emulate. People that bought a PS3 which that could play PS2 games still can play PS2 games.

I suppose Microsoft doesn't have a promised feature of their product not RRoDing.

 

[Huyderman]

I'd try it out if I still had my receipt, and bought it somewhere else than GameStop. I can't really imagine being able to convince a GS grunt to give me a refund, no matter how compelling an argument.

 

[Crops]

If my recollection of consumer law is correct;

First - Consumers are assumed to be completely aware of all license agreements and terms of use at the moment of purchase (this is their own responsibility). These terms and agreements are to be made available to the public, at least on request, by whoever created the product and affiliated terms.

In other words; If you don't have any terms or agreements available for reference, look them up online or simply ask Sony for them. Only if they refuse to make them available to you, they won't apply to any purchase you make.

Terms of use in simple words; (this isn't Sony-specific really, try reading the terms of any multinational just for laughs)
-No matter what happens, breaks, changes or who dies, you as the consumer have no rights.
-The producer is free to change the terms or product in any way he sees fit without prior notification.


Second - Anyone offering a product is to state in the description exactly the state of the product being offered. If the description given and agreed upon by both parties does not apply to the product being delivered after payment, the consumer has the right to either receive a refund or have the actual variation repaired, replaced or refunded. To be determined by the retailer. Should the defect or variation be unknown to the retailer, they can demand compensation from the producer.


Applied to the case at hand;

If Amazon literally stated that the PS3 in question was fully capable of running "Other OS", and the PS3 wasn't capable, the consumer could (in theory) demand a refund.
However: When the consumer purchased the product, it was capable, and Amazon delivered the exact product described.
The reason the product no longer lives up to the advertised specs has nothing to do with Amazon, and is actually an update installed by the consumer himself.
Sony generally forcefeeds you the terms of use on every update, and you have to select "I agree" physically to continue the update.

In terms of law, there is no such thing as "Well I had to update otherwise my online wouldn't work"
In this case, it was simply the consumer who changed the software on a piece of hardware he bought, and blamed the hardware retailer for the software change he had made himself. Even though everything the software changed was completely within the terms of use the consumer himself has agreed to in order to use the hardware, and again to change the software.

I can't believe Amazon even paid him.

 

[Rancid0ffspring]

Even the 80GB ones that had PS2 compatibility software had that feature removed.

I think you'll find they didn't. Only the original launch 60GB consoles had PS2 compatibility Sony removed the PS2 compatibility by removing the hardware that would play the PS2 games from the design of the 80GB console. My 80 was never able to play PS2 games & I got that when they were released in Sept 07. This whole other OS thing never appealed to me back then & certainly doesn't bother me now as I no longer have my PS3

Oh look this was also by you :]

this is a very rare instance where a feature will be disabled.

Bull. PS2 Emulation? Sound familiar?

Yes it sounds familiar, but thats not a removal of a feature from an existing product. If your console could play PS2 games back then it certainly can now. PS2 compatibility, 2 of the USB's & SD card slots were not included or marketed for the 80Gb consoles or any after that.

Even if you count it as a removal of a feature thats 2 instances in 3 years so yes it still sounds pretty damn rare to me.

 

[Stooo]

If my recollection of consumer law is correct;
*snip*

I can't believe Amazon even paid him.

Does not quite work like that in the EU where legal protections are more consumer centric rather than producer centric.
Not installing the update that removes OS installs stops me from using the store which is also a feature so either way I lose a feature that was advertised, therefore under EU law the product is no longer fully functional no matter what terms I have agreed to I may return the item within 12 months for a refund.
Many terms of use contracts are unenforceable within the EU due to the high level of consumer protection.

In the US the above doesn?t apply and you'll probably get sued or something for attempting to return the item.

 

[UberMore]

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.

At the point at which the guy got his PS3, this functionality was available and therefor not false advertising.
He entered into a contract that Sony could change anything they wanted when they wanted without prior notice, if he can't accept that at any point a function could be removed, then he shouldn't have entered the contract.
The very original advertised product and it's features are not the exact same as they were now, and Sony have the right to protect their assets.
Sony no longer advertise "Other OS" compatibility on any PS3's made and packaged after the firmware update, so are not falsely advertising.
The Xbox 360 came advertising Internet access, but not all consoles were available with it, with an optional tacked on item available to enable wireless, but no one's getting sued at MS.
Also, Xbox removed the ability to use a third-party Memory Card without prior warning to protect themselves from something far less damaging to the company, something that was advertised as a feature in the original sales. And, Linux being a Third-Party OS in respects to the OS the PS3 uses, means that they did nothing worse then what Xbox did.

 

[misfit119]

Even if you don't care about the feature in question everyone who is able to do so should do this immediately. I'd love to see Sony hit in the pocket for this so that they stop taking out damned features from the machine. I know they had a reason for doing it but getting in the way of hackers isn't actually going to stop them any. Between them removing stuff while running their mouths about "premium online services" the PS3 isn't really getting any favors done for it where Sony is concerned. The only thing keeping the PS3 going is the third-party developers really. All Sony can offer us is a freaking glowing Wii-mote. It's enough to make me facepalm at being such a huge Sony fan.

 

[Crops]

If my recollection of consumer law is correct;
*snip*

I can't believe Amazon even paid him.

Does not quite work like that in the EU where legal protections are more consumer centric rather than producer centric.
Not installing the update that removes OS installs stops me from using the store which is also a feature so either way I lose a feature that was advertised, therefore under EU law the product is no longer fully functional no matter what terms I have agreed to I may return the item within 12 months for a refund.
Many terms of use contracts are unenforceable within the EU due to the high level of consumer protection.

In the US the above doesn?t apply and you'll probably get sued or something for attempting to return the item.

I've looked up and read Sony's terms of use, they state (in full caps) that they are allowed to make any changes in software and/or firmware they deem necessary to prevent piracy. Also, Sony will not be held liable for (among several other things) any loss of functionality caused by any updates.
It also states that all terms are bound to local law.
Also, I've looked up legal terms (Local and EU) referring to the matter, and this is probably best considered a 'grey area' in law.

By purchasing the product, you confirm that you've read and agreed to the terms of use. Thus agreeing to the liability clause.
On the other hand, Sony's terms of use don't completely apply everywhere.

Law does state that the product delivered needs to fit advertisement and description. If the product varies from the agreement, advertisement or description, the consumer is in his right to claim a refund or replacement of the product.
It also states that this right does not apply in the case of any variations in the product that could have reasonably be assumed.
Considering the alteration of software/firmware is included in the terms (that you are assumed to be aware of upon purchase) it is reasonable to assume these variations to take place.


The main problem is that these laws are all based around the point of delivery, the point where the product comes into the consumer's posession. There aren't any solid laws considering post-delivery alterations. None protecting the consumer, and none protecting the retailer/producer. Making it a 'grey area'.

Considering all the above. I'd say that while it is possible to claim a refund of sorts, you'd need to make an extremely solid case since all existing laws point in favor of the retailer and/or producer.

Even though EU laws are extremely consumer-protective, the customer isn't always right.

EDIT; EU law is also quite specific in that the consumer loses his rights to replacement/refunding in case the product has become outdated -in case newer/better versions and or technology have been released to the market after the purchase was made-