Sony Disable “Install Other OS” in firmware (v3.21)

[BadTB25]

But Sony isn't doing that. You need to voluntarily install the update. Furthermore, a non-updated console is still perfectly functional. It can still play games. Now if future games don't work with it, well there was no guarantee ever made by Sony that it would work with future games or services.

I have to disagree.

If I bought my PS3 to play games, then it should play all current and future games without having to update its FW. The guarantee is the PS3 logo on the game box.

If I decide to play it online, then I all bets are off as the service (PSN) isn't something that was purchased.

 

[-tkf-]

If I decide to play it online, then I all bets are off as the service (PSN) isn't something that was purchased.

Ehmm that is as included in the box as the single player experience.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

If I bought my PS3 to play games, then it should play all current and future games without having to update its FW. The guarantee is the PS3 logo on the game box.

Absolutely. A system that randomly stops you playing games for it isn't fit for purpose. A PS3 should play each and every PS3 title, not PS3 games for the first couple of years and then nothing more even when other PS3's can.

 

[Rolf N]

The opposing lawyer can open up a whole new can of worms by saying the device was improperly modified.

I think this has been a moderately successful strategy against accidents coming to court as warranty claims, but of course this differs in a key point: the bad thing that happens here (device loses some/all function) is performed knowingly and deliberately.
Whereas, say, "My lawnmower blew up because my kids think it looks cool when this yellow screwdriver sticks out from that hole there" involves a lack of care.

edit: anyone heard of the case where a dude driving his trailer 'cross the land went back in the compartment to check on his coffee, while still "driving"? And he won, claiming no knowledge that this could be dangerous?

 

[DuckThor Evil]

edit: anyone heard of the case where a dude driving his trailer 'cross the land went back in the compartment to check on his coffee, while still "driving"? And he won, claiming no knowledge that this could be dangerous?

Couldn't find any information about this on Google. Can you find a link?

 

[Rolf N]

Couldn't find any information about this on Google. Can you find a link?

I have no idea about the details, may as well be an urban legend. Friend of mine who toured across the US for a few weeks brought this story back. He says there's manual sections and some sort of warning signs in the fronts of for-rent trailers at least, as a result of this lawsuit.

It's possible that he was just yarning though.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The opposing lawyer can open up a whole new can of worms by saying the device was improperly modified.

Yes. As i said, I'm sure lawyers could thrash this ad for a nice, long, profitable period for them. There's no definite right and wrong position here, unlike some legal stuff we come across with gaming.

 

[specwarGP2]

Absolutely. A system that randomly stops you playing games for it isn't fit for purpose. A PS3 should play each and every PS3 title, not PS3 games for the first couple of years and then nothing more even when other PS3's can.

But it's not randomly stopping you from playing games. Ok lets take for example you buy a PS3 with fw 3.0. As long as it keeps playing fw 3.0 compatible games then it's doing what its supposed to be doing. If a game requires fw 3.5 and you choose not to update you're out of luck because you bought a fw 3.0 console. There is no guarantee (a logo isnt a guarantee) that your PS3 will play games other than the fw it was shipped with.

No one expected BD profile 1.0 players to be able use the features of profile 2.0 software, so I dont see why people think this is any different.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

It all comes down to the grey-area definition of fit-for-purpose. A Profile 1 BRD player will still play every BRD movie, no? Even if not completely. So it still does what it was bought for. Whereas a PS3 was bought with a view to playing future games, inherently by design and expectation. It can be argued otherwise as you suggest, but there's nothing in writing, and it's all based on assumed normals of behaviour, which then get thrashed out in court. Me personally, I bought my PS3 with a view to playing not just the games available for it, but those coming out in the future. In particular LBP and Snowblind Studios next creation. If when these games came/come out, my PS3 can't play them, I'd be most miffed and consider it a broken system - I expect a console to play all the games that come out for it, unless it requires a peripheral to be bought in which case it should be clearly labelled. I presume you share the same view, and if you found that your consoles couldn't play any future games written for it and you had to buy a new system, you'd be less than happy.

 

[obonicus]

If I bought my PS3 to play games, then it should play all current and future games without having to update its FW. The guarantee is the PS3 logo on the game box.

But things change, features were added. For instance, Youtube upload came after release. Should SCE make devs start adding 'firmware version' checks to their code?

What about Move and games that require it? Should the PS3's firmware have supported all future hardware from the get-go?

 

[specwarGP2]

What's amusing about all this is that people are complaining about losing functionality because it came in the box, but at the same time expecting (free) functionality that didn't come in the box (fw updates) originally.

You can't have it both ways.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

What's amusing about all this is that people are complaining about losing functionality because it came in the box, but at the same time expecting (free) functionality that didn't come in the box (fw updates) originally.

Yes you can. Software has worked on that principle for a decade or so since internet patching became possible. Devices improving over time at no added cost is the norm. Now even CE goods like TVs, cameras and movie players have upgradeable firmware. How pleased would you be if you were told there's an optional firmware upgrade for your camera required to take more pictures but installing it would lost you ability to use smile recognition that was a listed feature of your camera when you bought it? Such an upgrade would still allow you to view the photographs you ahd already taken. Or how's about a Windows update that tells you if you don't install it you won't ever be able to install any new software to your PC, but if you do install it you'll ger locked out of certain websites and applications? Hell, that one would see MS up in front of the courts again, but it's the same thing in principle, locking you out of future use of your purchase or enforcing a limitation on you.

 

[flynn]

What's amusing about all this is that people are complaining about losing functionality because it came in the box, but at the same time expecting (free) functionality that didn't come in the box (fw updates) originally.

You can't have it both ways.

Yep, you hit the nail in the head. Also some people don't seem to understand that, while the hardware is yours and you can do anything you want with it, the firmware does belong to Sony and if you want to use the latest update you'll have to do so under their conditions.

I'm pretty upset with the situation but IMHO people blaming it on Sony are barking at the wrong tree.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

But things change, features were added. For instance, Youtube upload came after release. Should SCE make devs start adding 'firmware version' checks to their code?

I thought they do, and you need later firmwares to play later games.

What about Move and games that require it? Should the PS3's firmware have supported all future hardware from the get-go?

No, because the future features weren't known to include, but every PS3 owner has the option to add the new systems through firmware updates that come with them. However, if adding Move/Natal removed features from you console, do you think people would be best pleased?

It's the removing of features, not the changing, that is the problem here. I don't think anyone minds that firmware changes, as this typically means improvements. There is no obligation to improve firmware, only companies like to do so to add features and remain competitve. There is an obligation to preserve the bought product and not incapacitate it.

 

[obonicus]

I thought they do, and you need later firmwares to play later games.

No, I meant, say, in Just Cause 2, when the player tries to use the Youtube upload functionality have a hook that checks if that feature is available (or any other post-launch feature, like trophies or rumble).

No, because the future features weren't known to include, but every PS3 owner has the option to add the new systems through firmware updates that come with them. However, if adding Move/Natal removed features from you console, do you think people would be best pleased?

Check the post I replied to. He's saying that all PS3s should play all games. So that says that yes, if you go out and buy the Move kit, you shouldn't have to install any firmware to play those Move-only games, if a firmware update is required.

Complaining about removing features is quite reasonable, or complaining about Sony arbitrarily locking people out of games with future firmwares. But it's not reasonable to say that every PS3 game should play on any PS3, without firmware updates -- the software platform against which the games were developed has changed several times since launch.

 

[BoardBonobo]

Couldn't find any information about this on Google. Can you find a link?

It appeared on the darwin awards site a few years ago. Apparently he was driving a new motor home that had cruise control and the manual worded it so that it sounded like an auto pilot. Allegedly your man took it literally and whilst of the freeway he went to make a cup of coffee. Of course the thing veered off the road and crashed. But he still made a claim and succeeded.

 

[joker454]

I've never used the "other os" option on a PS3, but for those that have, is there a bunch of legal text that you have to agree to before you install? If there is, maybe there is a disclaimer in there someplace that lets them remove said feature at a future date at their discretion?

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

Even if there is, they sold people a ps3 with otherOS option so you can't just take it out when it seems there might be a security risk in my opinion. Probably 99,999% doesnt care about otherOS so removing it is probably relative easy to get away with but as soon as you are going to say its ok to remove functions based on a security risk next thing you know they might be disabling BR playback or ban games because they have a security risk or whatever.

The fact is Sony decided to allow otherOS. Sony isnt stupid so i'm sure they knew the potential risks and apperantly they decided that the risk wasnt big enough and allowed otherOS. Instead of trying to fix the security hole (is that possible?) they just take the easy way and cut the function all together.

 

[obonicus]

Even if there is, they sold people a ps3 with otherOS option so you can't just take it out when it seems there might be a security risk in my opinion. Probably 99,999% doesnt care about otherOS so removing it is probably relative easy to get away with but as soon as you are going to say its ok to remove functions based on a security risk next thing you know they might be disabling BR playback or ban games because they have a security risk or whatever.

That's a slippery slope argument. Part of the reason Sony cut out OtherOS is that it makes them no money. Games and BR do.

 

[deathindustrial]

It appeared on the darwin awards site a few years ago.

This is off topic but that story is an urban legend.

http://www.stellaawards.com/bogus.html

Cheers