ps3 other os - refundings

[TheVoice]

The only thing that is 'pathetic' here is the level of contempt shown by so many towards their rights as a consumer. This isn't about some free for all money-grab - it's about saying Sony, it isn't acceptable for you to remove features from the machine in this way. Our consumer laws provide protection against this, so why shouldn't we execute our right to them?

My concern is that if this takes off and everyone starts doing it, it's going to leave SCE having to pay out huge amounts of money that could potentially have been put into things that are actually going to benefit the majority of users.

Just seems like a lot of people are looking for compensation for something that doesn't deserve it, and especially doesn't deserve to be so high; £84 for the loss of one small, barely-used feature is excessive.

 

[james.miller]

The only thing that is 'pathetic' here is the level of contempt shown by so many towards their rights as a consumer. This isn't about some free for all money-grab - it's about saying Sony, it isn't acceptable for you to remove features from the machine in this way. Our consumer laws provide protection against this, so why shouldn't we execute our right to them?

yeah, it is. if money wasn't involved most of you wouldnt bother pursuing it.

it was rubbish anyway, not that it bothered me i sold my 60gb ages ago.

 

[G-MAN2004]

The cost of (allegedly) preventing piracy. I hope it was worth it for Sony.

From my understanding any costs incurred by the retailer if they choose to provide partial refunds would then be passed to Sony.

Thanks.

 

[Vonhelmet]

The only thing that is 'pathetic' here is the level of contempt shown by so many towards their rights as a consumer. This isn't about some free for all money-grab - it's about saying Sony, it isn't acceptable for you to remove features from the machine in this way. Our consumer laws provide protection against this, so why shouldn't we execute our right to them?

What consumer rights are you expecting protection under? The SoGA is only concerned with your dealings with the retailer, say Amazon. Amazon haven't sold anyone anything faulty or defective or unfit for purpose. That your use of the goods that they sold you is subject to a EULA is not their fault or problem.

You have no consumer contract with Sony. Your only contract with them is the EULA, and your use of the console implies your agreement with that. The EULA permits Sony to add or remove features as they see fit, so they are well within their rights to remove the Other OS feature. If you want to do anything on that front you'd have to attack Sony on the basis that either the EULA is not a valid, binding contract, or those specific terms aren't binding, which would probably be on the basis that they are unfair.

That Amazon have paid out says very little about who is actually at fault here and what people should be doing to resolve this.

 

[djkav]

What consumer rights are you expecting protection under? The SoGA is only concerned with your dealings with the retailer, say Amazon. Amazon haven't sold anyone anything faulty or defective or unfit for purpose. That your use of the goods that they sold you is subject to a EULA is not their fault or problem.

You have no consumer contract with Sony. Your only contract with them is the EULA, and your use of the console implies your agreement with that. The EULA permits Sony to add or remove features as they see fit, so they are well within their rights to remove the Other OS feature. If you want to do anything on that front you'd have to attack Sony on the basis that either the EULA is not a valid, binding contract, or those specific terms aren't binding, which would probably be on the basis that they are unfair.

That Amazon have paid out says very little about who is actually at fault here and what people should be doing to resolve this.

Maybe, but in legal land its all to do with wording. In this case the EU law covers the wording, "Fit for the purpose."

If a consumer only purchased the PS3 for its OtherOS feature to run Linux (advertised feature), and was not interested in the other features. Then Sony released a firmware update that removed that feature. Then it fails to fit the purpose of the consumer.

That argument stands up in law.

 

[Streeteh]

If a consumer only purchased the PS3 for its OtherOS feature to run Linux (advertised feature), and was not interested in the other features. Then Sony released a firmware update that removed that feature. Then it fails to fit the purpose of the consumer.

That argument stands up in law.

If it's the only feature that matters to them then they simply don't update the firmware on the console. Anyone who really uses it for development wouldn't mind losing access to the PSN as i doubt they jump online for a quick game of fifa while at work.

 

[andshrew]

I'm guessing you don't have a problem when Sony add features with updates and don't ask for money?

I don't really have a choice? If I don't install the updates then I, again, loose the ability to play PS3 games or Bluray discs which require that firmware. If Sony want to add things in that's their choice - and I seriously doubt they would have been so 'generous' with the enhancements had they not been so far behind the competition - but I do care when they decide to remove functionality in the way they've gone about it.

 

[Vonhelmet]

Maybe, but in legal land its all to do with wording. In this case the EU law covers the wording, "Fit for the purpose."

If a consumer only purchased the PS3 for its OtherOS feature to run Linux (advertised feature), and was not interested in the other features. Then Sony released a firmware update that removed that feature. Then it fails to fit the purpose of the consumer.

That argument stands up in law.

I think it's probably best we leave it to a judge to decide how the EULA stacks up against EU consumer law.

 

[andshrew]

My concern is that if this takes off and everyone starts doing it, it's going to leave SCE having to pay out huge amounts of money that could potentially have been put into things that are actually going to benefit the majority of users.

Just seems like a lot of people are looking for compensation for something that doesn't deserve it, and especially doesn't deserve to be so high; £84 for the loss of one small, barely-used feature is excessive.

Perhaps they should have considered this before removing OtherOS less than a month after stating they still fully supported in on the original PS3's.

I do agree that I'm not entirely sure how Amazon calculated OtherOS as being 20% the value of the PS3, and they'll have to justify that if they challenge Sony.

yeah, it is. if money wasn't involved most of you wouldnt bother pursuing it.

Well, really want I want is for either the feature to be reinstated in the next patch or for them to provide a solution that lets me play new PS3 games and Blu-ray films without having to disable OtherOS (if you were to loose PSN access as a result of this that would be absolutely fair enough).
But that's not going to happen and it would be a pretty weak message to Sony if there wasn't some form of money involved.

What consumer rights are you expecting protection under? The SoGA is only concerned with your dealings with the retailer, say Amazon. Amazon haven't sold anyone anything faulty or defective or unfit for purpose. That your use of the goods that they sold you is subject to a EULA is not their fault or problem.

You have no consumer contract with Sony. Your only contract with them is the EULA, and your use of the console implies your agreement with that. The EULA permits Sony to add or remove features as they see fit, so they are well within their rights to remove the Other OS feature. If you want to do anything on that front you'd have to attack Sony on the basis that either the EULA is not a valid, binding contract, or those specific terms aren't binding, which would probably be on the basis that they are unfair.

That Amazon have paid out says very little about who is actually at fault here and what people should be doing to resolve this.

Sony isn't being challenged directly with this, the retailer is under Directive 1999/44/EC. The changes Sony have made mean that the PS3 no longer complies with description under which it was sold - it states that goods be "fit for the purpose which the consumer requires them and which was made known to the seller at the time of purchase.” It was made known at the time of purchase that the PS3 system would be able to install an 'OtherOS'. It would then be up to the retailer to challenge Sony, and in this case either amazon were being overly generous or they are fairly certain they'll be able to pass the cost of partial refunds to Sony. This will become clearer when they've received a few more of these complaints.