Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Android L Update For Nvidia Shield Portable Removes Features

Posted by timothy on from the say-it-ain't-so dept.

An anonymous reader writes: For those of us who still remember the Hobson's choice with the 3.21 update of the PS3 firmware, the most recent update to the Nvidia Shield Portable is eerily similar. The update, which is necessary to run recent games and apps that require Android 5.0 APIs, removes some features from the device, and removes the games that were bundled with the device, Sonic 4 Episode II and The Expendables: ReArmed. Nvidia has stressed that it is an optional update, but how many users have been told for months that the update was coming, some of whom may have bought the device after the update was announced, only to find out now they won't receive all the functionality they paid for? How is it still legal for these companies to advertise and sell a whole product but only deliver part of it?

4 of 117 comments (clear)

  1. Right ... by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How is it still legal for these companies to advertise and sell a whole product but only deliver part of it?

    Because they have all the power, can simply change the fucking terms of service as they see fit, and have the fucking politicians in their pockets to ensure they can get away with it.

    Honestly, are you expecting a fair situation in which the consumer actually gets input on this shit?

    You might as well ask a Ferengi for favorable financing terms. If he gives them to you, they're not favorable.

    Why do we keep acting like we're surprised by any of this crap? Unless people start changing laws to shift the balance away from corporations, this is all you'll ever get.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Right ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      People are idiots. They keep buying shit from companies and even laud them despite the shit they pull. Case in point for this site: Valve. They took away your rights in court, requiring almost always unfair to the consumer arbitration. Then they denied access to games for those who refused the new agreement.

      Yet everyone here thinks they can do no wrong.

      I don't know how to fix it, but I do know it sucks for us all. :(

    2. Re:Right ... by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Has anyone mentioned that these games were removed for compatibility reasons? Does that make a difference? I'd love to know how nvidia is supposed to fix 3rd party games if they simply don't work on the latest version of the OS? Do they not let people update? Or leave the games there, but just broken? I'm not sure there are any good answers here. Ideally, the developers would fix their own games, but there's probably very little financial incentive for them to do that at this point.

      Why exactly is this a breaking update? That might be a good question to ask as well. This is sort of crappy for owners of those devices, but I'm not sure this is in quite the same league as what Sony did.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
  2. Brilliant riposte. Not. by tlambert · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "...only that the PS3 class action idiots failed to put one forth."

    if they only had someone as brilliant as you on the team.

    (sarcasm, you fuckwit. You're actually a complete fuckwit, fuckwit).

    Brilliant riposte. Not.

    The judge went out of his way to state what type of argument he would accept.

    Three times.

    He gave as broad a hint as he could possibly have given, by dismissing all but the path to the argument for which he would rule in favor.

    He put a big red sign in front of it, and then he tied a bow around it for the plaintiff.

    He came dangerously close to judicial misconduct in so doing.

    Then he left the door open from February, 2011, when he did all the pointing in his ruling, until December 2011, at which point it was clear that the hint was not being taken, and only then did he dismiss the last count of the class.

    And *STILL* the PS3 plaintiffs failed to make the case the judge all but asked them to make.

    Pardon me, but JESUS F*ING CHRIST, CAN YOU NOT TAKE A JUDICIAL HINT IN *TEN* MONTHS?!?!?

    A lawyer would have to either be incompetent, guilty of malpractice, or outright corrupt to not make the argument the judge wanted them to make, after the number of times the judge tried to hit them over the head with a two by four, and tell them how to make their case, and then gave them TEN MONTHS to avoid getting a new judge, rather than a judge who had, effectively, promised to take the argument, if made, and rule in favor of the plaintiff!

    Who is the "f*ckwit" here, again?