Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Sony Refuses To Sanction PS3 "Other OS" Refunds

Posted by Soulskill on from the you-paid-for-what-we-say-you-paid-for dept.

Stoobalou writes "Sony says that it has no intention of reimbursing retailers if they offer users partial refunds for fat PS3s. Last week, the first PS3 user successfully secured a partial refund from Amazon UK as compensation for the removal of the ability to run Linux on the console. The user quoted European law in order to persuade the online retailer that the goods he had bought in good faith were no longer fit for his purposes because of the enforcement of firmware update 3.21, which meant that users who chose to keep the Other OS functionality would lose the ability to play the latest games or connect to the PlayStation Network."

15 of 396 comments (clear)

  1. Normally, I'd say let them do what they want by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Usually I'd be out here saying let Sony do what they want with their own platform, but this is really kind of a dick move. They don't lose anything keeping the extra functionality, and they lose a ton of goodwill by blocking out some of their most ardent supporters.

    Sucky
    Onerous
    Nasty
    Ydiots.

    1. Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want by 91degrees · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Their platform, but not their machine. People had bought those machines and Sony decides to break them.

    2. Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Normally, I'd do the same, but this situation is not analogous to the usual problems that /.ers have with Sony. It's more than Sony trying to sell something sub-par at par price (like the rootkits, for example), this is Sony actually reducing functionality that people paid for. This can not possibly be legal, and I'm sure there's a class-action in this somewhere. They paid for the functionality, and now Sony is removing it without consent.

      The only spanner in the works here is that the PS3 owners don't need to upgrade their PS3s. All their games that they've bought so far currently work, so long as they don't "upgrade" to the latest firmware, plus they keep their other OS functionality. Sure, they can't buy new games, but they don't necessarily have the right to buy new games. However, I would argue that customers bought their PS3s, in part, for the games. In buying a PS3, there's a clear expectation that you will have the ability (given the will and the money) to buy and play some of the many forthcoming PS3 games. Sony has artificially and abruptly shortened the life of the platform for those wishing to continue using their second OS.

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    3. Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      OTOH these supporters cost them real money.

      That's their problem. And it does not make it any less illegal in the EU.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    4. Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want by beh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      From the article:

      "which meant that users who chose to keep the Other OS functionality would lose the ability to play the latest games or connect to the PlayStation Network."

      So, the people who chose to keep the Other OS functionality, can no longer buy any new games - so if people needed that functionality, but also play games, then Sony will make them choose:

      a) buy another new console so you have one for your other OS; and one for games. This adds revenue for Sony, but causes them a loss as they subsidize the basic console (i.e. the will lose the subsidy twice on such a customer).

      b) stay with one console with Other OS, but stop playing games on the PS3 - thereby ensuring the user will no longer add to Sony's revenue.

      c) remove the Other OS, update and only use it for playing. Revenue stream continues for Sony (on new games) - but at the cost of goodwill to the company.

      I don't see any decent outcome for Sony on either of the three options...

    5. Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want by mcvos · · Score: 4, Insightful

      OTOH these supporters cost them real money.

      Sony adds some good money to each console, hoping to recuperate in games and movies.

      That's Sony's own fault for having a sucky business model. It's their own decision to sell PS3s at a loss. They didn't have to do that.

      However, if Sony has presented these consoles as being able to run Linux as well as play games, and they take away that ability, then by any decent standard, Sony owes customers who bought their PS3 for that ability a refund. They're changing the advertised abilities of their product after the sale has happened. That's not right, and deserves to be illegal in any jurisdiction.

    6. Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want by Sleepy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >OTOH these supporters cost them real money.

      Sony ADVERTISES a feature. I buy a product BECAUSE of that feature. This is a transaction.
      Then Sony time-bombs or removes that feature.
      I have had something taken away from ME, and you have the balls to suggest this cost Sony?
      On what planet sir do you spend most of your time?

      Now, let's proceed with your outrageous suggestion that mega corporations have a right to shut down customers who are less profitable.
      Suggesting that "OtherOS costs Sony real money" is no less applicable than saying "Blu-Ray users cost Sony real money".. should Sony disable PS3 users who play movies but DON'T play games?
      Are you SERIOUS??

      I use OtherOS. I have Linux on my laptop, but it's nice to demo things on the TV and not have to hook up the laptop.
      Actually, why the hell should I have to justify using something I already paid for?

    7. Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want by Rigrig · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Except people who only buy PS3s for supercomputing aren't affected, only the people that want to run another OS and also play the games they buy.

      --
      **TODO** [X] Steal someone elses sig.
    8. Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want by uglyduckling · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're making a geek distinction that has no place in the world of law. Sony sold a device with certain features, one of those features no longer works following interference by the manufacturer. That's breach of contract.

    9. Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want by digitig · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, I think that's the interesting point here. Instead of pissing off a tiny minority of users, Sony is now pissing off all of its (European) distributors (all of whom will either have customers who care about other OSs or who will worry that they might). Those retailers can make life more uncomfortable for Sony than a few disgruntled users.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    10. Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want by KDR_11k · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sony's legal counsel thought it was a great idea to stick rootkits on their music CDs. When it comes to technology the legal counsel often fails to see important facts.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    11. Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want by iapetus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This really is a feeble argument. Sony removed the functionality - Geohot didn't. If you feel it's fair to pass the blame to him because of something that he may or may not have done, then by the same virtue it gets passed right back to Sony because they didn't get their security right first time.

      Sony took this functionality away. It is likely that this was in violation of local law. This is their fault, and they should be made to pay appropriate compensation. It really is that simple.

      --
      ++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
      Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
  2. Why did SONY even bother making this a feature... by hguiney · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...if they didn't actually give a shit about it? What were they expecting people to do with it, if not make homebrew games and rip Blu-rays? Seems like really poor product design on their part.

  3. Re:I guess... by SharpFang · · Score: 5, Insightful

    totally. I guess it will be even more successful than the total boycott of Modern Warfare 2 for lack of dedicated servers. That certainly showed them!

    --
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  4. Sony has dealed with this before by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The PSP was infamous for having bad pixel problems. More so then any other device including the cheaper DS. So naturally Sony dug in and claimed that bad pixels were normal and it wouldn't repair or replace.

    Dutch consumer watchdog program Kassa took up the story and voila, Holland become the only country were Sony replaced the PSP with ANY dead pixel or subpixel.

    It is amazing how much consumer rights are being eroded by big companies who hope that the enough consumers just won't push the issue far enough for them to be forced to regonize the law.

    OF course Sony has NO such problem prosecuting the consumer if they happen to violate the law (copyright infringement).

    It seems that to big companies the law is a buffet. You take what you need and ignore the rest. And we are letting them get away with it.

    And no, it ain't just Sony fanboys either. Apple lovers and MS apologists are just as bad.

    We the consumer need to grow some balls.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.