Monday, December 12th 2011
PS3 'OtherOS' Scandal: Sony 1, Customers 0
The verdict is in: a company can flog you a product while loudly advertising a significant feature likely to sway your buying decision, then yank it away from you sometime later - and get away with it. Yay!
Sounds like a ridiculous, awful parody, doesn't it? Unfortunately, it isn't. This is what's happened with the "OtherOS" feature so unceremoniously yanked by Sony from the PlayStation 3 way back in March 2010 with a firmware update - the infamous version 3.21 - all in the name of increasing system security to prevent game "piracy". At the time the feature was advertised, many enthusiasts realized that they could use the PS3 as a cheap, but powerful computer and Linux was lovingly ported over to it. Even the US military built a "supercomputer" around a cluster of 1760 PlayStation 3's, finding them very useful for such things as researching artificial intelligence, image enhancement and pattern recognition, all things requiring intensive computer power. They can't do this any more, all because of the "fight against piracy." As machines die off, they can't be replaced with new ones. Unless those can somehow have the old firmware put on them using some unofficial workaround, of course...
Enthusiasts interested in this feature were understandably not happy at being treated in such a shoddy way. One Californian resident, Anthony Ventura, even had the guts to file a class action lawsuit against Sony over this and the case looked like a strong one. The lawsuit stated that the removal of this feature was an "intentional disablement of the valuable functionalities originally advertised as available." However, today, U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg unfortunately dismissed all but one of Ventura's claims, upholding the EULA that Sony makes customers agree to when they purchase the console. In its motion to dismiss the suit, Sony wrote: "These contracts specifically provide PS3 purchasers with a license, not an ownership interest, in the software and in the use of the PSN, and provide that SCEA has the right to disable or alter software features or terminate or limit access to the PSN, including by issuing firmware updates."
Judge Seeborg's reasoning that the lawsuit should be dismissed is that Ventura is claiming rights to something which he doesn't have rights to: "All of the counts are based on plaintiffs' fundamental contention that it was wrongful for Sony to disable the Other OS feature, or, more precisely, to [force PS3 owners to decide between] permitting the Other OS feature to be disabled or forgoing their access to the PSN and any other benefits available through installing. The flaw in plaintiffs' [argument] is that they are claiming rights not only with respect to the features of the PS3 product, but also to have ongoing access to an internet service offered by Sony, the PSN."Although a little unlikely, Ventura may yet appeal this dismissal. We will publish a follow-up article if this happens.
The only part of the lawsuit that the judge "upheld", was that Venture was allowed to continue using the PS3 with the original firmware, thereby allowing "OtherOS" to be used in that configuration only. A small consolation, if any at all - how are Sony going to stop him anyway? This "option" of course, brings with it a host of problems for the now hapless user, as Escapist Magazine explains: "The plaintiffs maintain that firmware update 3.21 doesn't just forbid access to the PSN, the main functions of the console are no longer viable. To wit, if you didn't update, you could no longer play new games, play games online, play new Blu-Rays, or even play some older Blu-rays. So choosing not to update and keep the "Other OS" option alive means that no new purchases are possible and it seriously restricts the usefulness of the product." Exactly and Sony know this very well, coldly using it as leverage to force people into disabling this important feature.
However, as awful and unjust as this verdict is, it does appear that the law is apparently completely on Sony's side and therefore the judge was merely applying it. The famous phrase, "the law is an ass" appears to fit this case perfectly. In fact, judge Seeborg did actually sympathise with Ventura's situation, which is nice of him: "The dismay and frustration at least some PS3 owners likely experienced when Sony made the decision to limit access to the PSN service to those who were willing to disable the Other OS feature on their machines was no doubt genuine and understandable. As a matter of providing customer satisfaction and building loyalty, it may have been questionable. As a legal matter, however, plaintiffs have failed to allege facts or to articulate a theory on which Sony may be held liable."
So there you have it, a company can sell you a product and then a considerable time later pull a feature which is a major selling point without penalty, not even having to bother compensating the buyer for it in the smallest way. Nothing. Nada. This gives a very poor experience for the customer and leaves them wondering when the next feature will be pulled, or what other dirty tricks the company will be up to. The only thing left to do in such a situation is for everyone to vote with their wallets and boycott companies that have such nasty business ethics. This doesn't happen often enough in practice, unfortunately.
Finally, one does wonder if the lawsuit would have been dismissed so easily if an entity with deep pockets such as the US military with its homemade supercomputer would have brought this class action...
Sounds like a ridiculous, awful parody, doesn't it? Unfortunately, it isn't. This is what's happened with the "OtherOS" feature so unceremoniously yanked by Sony from the PlayStation 3 way back in March 2010 with a firmware update - the infamous version 3.21 - all in the name of increasing system security to prevent game "piracy". At the time the feature was advertised, many enthusiasts realized that they could use the PS3 as a cheap, but powerful computer and Linux was lovingly ported over to it. Even the US military built a "supercomputer" around a cluster of 1760 PlayStation 3's, finding them very useful for such things as researching artificial intelligence, image enhancement and pattern recognition, all things requiring intensive computer power. They can't do this any more, all because of the "fight against piracy." As machines die off, they can't be replaced with new ones. Unless those can somehow have the old firmware put on them using some unofficial workaround, of course...
Judge Seeborg's reasoning that the lawsuit should be dismissed is that Ventura is claiming rights to something which he doesn't have rights to: "All of the counts are based on plaintiffs' fundamental contention that it was wrongful for Sony to disable the Other OS feature, or, more precisely, to [force PS3 owners to decide between] permitting the Other OS feature to be disabled or forgoing their access to the PSN and any other benefits available through installing. The flaw in plaintiffs' [argument] is that they are claiming rights not only with respect to the features of the PS3 product, but also to have ongoing access to an internet service offered by Sony, the PSN."Although a little unlikely, Ventura may yet appeal this dismissal. We will publish a follow-up article if this happens.
The only part of the lawsuit that the judge "upheld", was that Venture was allowed to continue using the PS3 with the original firmware, thereby allowing "OtherOS" to be used in that configuration only. A small consolation, if any at all - how are Sony going to stop him anyway? This "option" of course, brings with it a host of problems for the now hapless user, as Escapist Magazine explains: "The plaintiffs maintain that firmware update 3.21 doesn't just forbid access to the PSN, the main functions of the console are no longer viable. To wit, if you didn't update, you could no longer play new games, play games online, play new Blu-Rays, or even play some older Blu-rays. So choosing not to update and keep the "Other OS" option alive means that no new purchases are possible and it seriously restricts the usefulness of the product." Exactly and Sony know this very well, coldly using it as leverage to force people into disabling this important feature.
However, as awful and unjust as this verdict is, it does appear that the law is apparently completely on Sony's side and therefore the judge was merely applying it. The famous phrase, "the law is an ass" appears to fit this case perfectly. In fact, judge Seeborg did actually sympathise with Ventura's situation, which is nice of him: "The dismay and frustration at least some PS3 owners likely experienced when Sony made the decision to limit access to the PSN service to those who were willing to disable the Other OS feature on their machines was no doubt genuine and understandable. As a matter of providing customer satisfaction and building loyalty, it may have been questionable. As a legal matter, however, plaintiffs have failed to allege facts or to articulate a theory on which Sony may be held liable."
So there you have it, a company can sell you a product and then a considerable time later pull a feature which is a major selling point without penalty, not even having to bother compensating the buyer for it in the smallest way. Nothing. Nada. This gives a very poor experience for the customer and leaves them wondering when the next feature will be pulled, or what other dirty tricks the company will be up to. The only thing left to do in such a situation is for everyone to vote with their wallets and boycott companies that have such nasty business ethics. This doesn't happen often enough in practice, unfortunately.
Finally, one does wonder if the lawsuit would have been dismissed so easily if an entity with deep pockets such as the US military with its homemade supercomputer would have brought this class action...
66 Comments on PS3 'OtherOS' Scandal: Sony 1, Customers 0
At least I know my PC won't be losing any of its functionality anytime soon.
The things Sony can get away with is truly ridiculous.
But I never expected to despise them.
Well done Sony, well done. :respect:
you people amaze me. take some personal responsibility for the purchases you make for once in your life.
if enough people read the EULA and understood what sony could possibly do then less people would buy sony and they would have to change their terms.
A. Limits the functionality of your console as a whole
B. Is perfectly legal due to the nature of the PSN and newly released content.
C. Is not necessary but simply cripples your product if you do not allow it.
It is not that people try to avoid taking personal responsibility it is simply that the way some of these incidents are implemented is in such a way that it strong arms you into either going along or losing the most basic functionality of your product.
There obviously are a select few instances where OtherOS was the reason for buying the console, mainly using it exclusively for the Linux aspect to use the PS3 in a cluster. In which case, those users simply don't update the firmware on the PS3. In fact they probably never even boot into the PS3 interface.FTFY
It isn't just Sony, it is pretty much everyone that has an EULA.Yep. Right when you unboxed the PS3 and powered it on for the first time it greats you with the EULA that you either agree to or not. That is when the option was given to you. If you didn't like the idea of them being able to remove features of the console that you might like, then you shouldn't have agreed to the EULA in the beginning, boxed it back up, and returned it to the store.
Don't see why people are upset, just run Linux on another machine or dual boot.
My PC, I can install any software, OS, change hardware, and do what I like.
OtherOS was a good addition, but nothing more.
remember, companies survive on profits which means they survive on you and me. we make the demands and sony and others follow with the supply. they create products to compete for our dollar. as a society we have been getting lazy with our money and just throw it anyone who promises us a few fun hours. pretty god d%mned pathetic if you ask me.
Sorry if that ended up a bit more incoherent than I intended. :ohwell:
Which is one thing already. But guess what. On December 6th, I noticed all of my GfWL titles in Steam (Arkham Asylum, Lost Planet 2, etc.) were suddenly showing my CD-Keys in Steam again. Ok, maybe a glitch or something on Valve's end right? Nope.
The ToS for GfWL has been updated too. Until I accept the new terms, I can no longer access the game save files tied to my Live profile, or play with my peers online via the Live network.
Now to be fair, I haven't read through the new ToS of GfWL to know whether the same opt-out impossibility was contained within as well. I've emailed a few sites/blogs about it and I hope to bring it to their attention. However, in these circumstances, I'm not solely being asked to agree to something to access an optional service like Xbox Live or achievement tracking. The games are perfectly able to be played offline without multiplayer and e-peen bullshit, and I assume I can still do so. Nonetheless, an interesting question remains: are the save games that my effort has created not my property when they're stored on the Live cloud systems and held hostage by a changed ToS? Have I only, in the past, agreed to receive a license to data I create, when the [Live cloud] system itself doesn't allow me the option of local storage?
I don't recall signing to Microsoft the rights to any creative work I might create while in their employ, for a salary. So is it possible that by virtue of buying a game and playing it, I've relinquished my rights to the data (stats, progress, autosaves) my play effort creates simply by virtue that it was mandatory it be whisked away to the Live cloud depository?
Does Adobe own everything I create in Photoshop if I save it to the "2013 Adobe Cloud"?