Sony forced to pay for removing other O/S Support on PS3

Loki · 6 Jun 2010 at 16:43

Im sure I have seen this pop up but can't find it in the search. Anywho, Sony are being forced to refund customers 50% of the original purchase price of their systems bought before march 27th 2010 because they removed the feature of having another OS installed on the PS3. This according to some court ruling state side. Not sure if this ruling would apply to US only.

http://n4g.com/news/537765/sony-refunding-all-ps3-owners-for-removing-an-advertised-feature

Nanoman · 6 Jun 2010 at 16:47

A number of people are calling it fake.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=21660611&postcount=28

Streeteh · 6 Jun 2010 at 16:54

50%? Sounds like BS but if it's true that's quite a ridiculous figure.

Vonhelmet · 6 Jun 2010 at 16:54

50percent? Haha, no way can that be true.

Robert1986 · 6 Jun 2010 at 17:04

so linux is worth half the price of the console?

Can't people just install linux on their pc.

Mailman86 · 6 Jun 2010 at 18:08

As much as I wish this to be true, sounds like bs to me as well.

msmalls74 · 6 Jun 2010 at 18:19

Someone hacked the site the prelim hearing isnt until July, why would they refund all PS3s from March when you have only been able to purchase slims for the last 6 months? Personally i hope all that moan about having a feature removed that 99% never used, get charged for all the extra features they have added

. Maybe people should sue the hackers bragging about hacking the PS3 other OS to play pirate games than the company protecting itself.

Abooie · 6 Jun 2010 at 19:27

If you advertise a certain feature i.e. linux OS and then remove it someone could argue they bought it for that feature and demand a refund.

Sony are on dodgy grounds.

UnworthyBean · 6 Jun 2010 at 19:39

So I get £210?

BS.

I say they can give you a complete refund, But not just refund half of it and let you keep it? However much i'd love it to be true.

msmalls74 · 6 Jun 2010 at 19:41

Abooie said:
If you advertise a certain feature i.e. linux OS and then remove it someone could argue they bought it for that feature and demand a refund.

Sony are on dodgy grounds.

You still can use that feature though, you just cant connect to PSN or update your PS3. So if thats why you bought it just to use linux :rolleyes:

then your OK.

Streeteh · 6 Jun 2010 at 19:45

Abooie said:
If you advertise a certain feature i.e. linux OS and then remove it someone could argue they bought it for that feature and demand a refund.

Sony are on dodgy grounds.

Surely then the end user has to prove they only used the product for that feature/it was a major feature to them.

To return the product for a full refund of the original purchase price is fair enough i guess, but to be just given money but to be allowed to continue to use a product due to the removal of an extremely unused feature is just mental.

richb93 · 6 Jun 2010 at 19:48

I wish!

Nanoman · 6 Jun 2010 at 20:32

Abooie said:
If you advertise a certain feature i.e. linux OS and then remove it someone could argue they bought it for that feature and demand a refund.

Sony are on dodgy grounds.

Not really Sony won't even need amazing lawyers to get the logic of the situation across effectively. Functionalities are covered under Sony T&Cs, 99% of people never used the feature, it was a massive security risk with evidence of the iphone hacker potentially exploiting the system and they also gave the option to still use the feature but without further updates.

Vonhelmet · 6 Jun 2010 at 20:37

Abooie said:
If you advertise a certain feature i.e. linux OS and then remove it someone could argue they bought it for that feature and demand a refund.

Sony are on dodgy grounds.

Only if the EULA can be shown to not be a binding contract.

Lee2k4 · 6 Jun 2010 at 21:59

Any Lawyer would tell you this is ridiculous, Sony would not agree to this and I doubt any Court in the world would even consider it.

K1LLSW1TCH · 7 Jun 2010 at 01:23

I don't see any reason as to why Sony should have to pay out anything. It's their console and they can decide which features to implement and remove. People don't have to buy the system and I certainly wouldn't ***** £200+ up the wall purely to use a p.o.s OS on a console.

Margaret · 7 Jun 2010 at 01:33

K1LLSW1TCH said:
I don't see any reason as to why Sony should have to pay out anything. It's their console and they can decide which features to implement and remove. People don't have to buy the system and I certainly wouldn't ***** £200+ up the wall purely to use a p.o.s OS on a console.

Why are you calling Linux a p.o.s? I know it was lackluster on PS3 but it's a good OS on a real computer. I don't use it but it's definitely not a p.o.s!

K1LLSW1TCH · 7 Jun 2010 at 01:45

Margaret said:
Why are you calling Linux a p.o.s? I know it was lackluster on PS3 but it's a good OS on a real computer. I don't use it but it's definitely not a p.o.s!

Tbh I'd rather stick with OSX and Windows, like the rest of the mainstream. I'm not one for tinkering with every tiny detail which is what Linux entails, it's for people with beards.

Margaret · 7 Jun 2010 at 02:07

K1LLSW1TCH said:
Tbh I'd rather stick with OSX and Windows, like the rest of the mainstream. I'm not one for tinkering with every tiny detail which is what Linux entails, it's for people with beards.

So would I, it's still not a p.o.s though

FrankJH · 7 Jun 2010 at 04:10

Abooie said:
If you advertise a certain feature i.e. linux OS and then remove it someone could argue they bought it for that feature and demand a refund.

Sony are on dodgy grounds.

I dont believe Sony have ever advertised that the PS3 could do this in the 1st place