Amazon has given a PS3 buyer a 20 per cent refund following Sony's controversial decision to remove the ability to install Other Operating Systems on the console.
The move to disable the likes of Yellow Dog Linux with April's 3.21 firmware update didn't go down well with some PS3 owners, and NeoGAF forum moderator 'iapetus' took his complaint directly to Amazon, where he'd bought his console.
European law responsibility is placed on retailers and not product manufacturers, and Directive 1999/44/EC states that goods must "be fit for the purpose which the consumer requires them and which was made known to the seller at the time of purchase".
iapetus subsequently obtained his partial refund despite his console being out of warranty and Amazon's 30-day guarantee, according to PlayStation University.
So where does this leave us? If a raft of similar complaints crop up then retailers could attempt to pressure Sony into re-enabling Other OS functionality.
The platform holder might argue that the firmware update wasn't mandatory, and also that it changed the console's software and not its hardware features.
That's hardly fair though, is it, considering that not accepting the firmware update would result in an inability to use a number of the console's online features and even problems playing new software.
This could be the first sign of the public being able to take back a little bit of control. For years we have been to take what we are given and like it. But now that consumers are getting money back from the retailer, then pressure put onto the manufacturer, we wont take it lying down any more.
What is it they say ... 'Where there's blame, there's a claim', fill your boots PS3 owners, fill your boots!
You almost sound excited there, StonecoldMC.
Unfortunately, I don't think the ten people who used linux on their PS3 will make too much of a dent in Sony's wallet.
Without knowing the ins and outs of this particular claim I just thought it was good news for PS3 owners in general, surley if one person can get it, everyone can?
This could be the first sign of the public being able to take back a little bit of control. For years we have been to take what we are given and like it. But now that consumers are getting money back from the retailer, then pressure put onto the manufacturer, we wont take it lying down any more.
Precisely Connor. It would be a much welcomed changed IMO to see customers retake some of their purchasing power, and begin to re-balance the pendulum of power that swings between us and the corporations. Regardless of the cavalier attitude displayed by Mark, the point is not as to whether there are ten or ten thousand, etc. customers whom are unfairly affected by strong arm corporate tactics. The point is that the product no longer functions precisely as advertised and/or fails to function as promised if one does not accept an update (which, if that is the case, it can easily be argued is not an "optional update" carried out in fair spirit of existing commercial laws).
@Mark:
Just because you, Mark and some others, may not use Linux or what-have-you does not equate with others not using it, nor should it automatically mean that it's okay for those people to have their rights trampled. If that is the case then I'd love to hear your, and others', comments on such matters when the time comes for your rights and your interests to be trampled upon. I'm guessing the tune would change significantly at that point.
20% refund? Mayaswell keep your PS3. This guy only bought a PS3 so he could have lynx on it? That in itself is quite sad.
Ah well fair play to people who want that 20% refund I myself will be happy keeping my PS3 and it still does what I want it to.
I also dout Sony will put the feature back.
I think you've somewhat missed the point - he didn't have to return his PS3; he just got a 20% refund, and kept the console. If he'd wanted to, he could have returned it for a full refund.
Call me ignorant, but what exactly are the benefits of using a different OS System on your PS3.
Why did Sony opt to remove the functionality? Was it a hole they plugged to stop piracy akin to how the PSP gets cracked? Most people that bought a psp bought it to crack it, it wouldn't have sold anywhere near as well as it did if it wasn't.
I suspect that the update not being mandatory is irrelevant for anyone looking to do the same.
If you choose not to update you can no longer use many online features and could therefore argue that the machine is still no longer "fit for purpose" under European law.
I think Sony might start back pedaling on this one soon, or a lot of retailers could be very upset.
Call me ignorant, but what exactly are the benefits of using a different OS System on your PS3.
Why did Sony opt to remove the functionality? Was it a hole they plugged to stop piracy akin to how the PSP gets cracked? Most people that bought a psp bought it to crack it, it wouldn't have sold anywhere near as well as it did if it wasn't.
Yeah the hypervisor portion of the PS3's o/s was hacked and published online recently, I believe it had something to do with the other o/s portion of the PS3 as to how they got in to it.
Although this might be a case of locking the door after the horse has bolted as cracking groups can now reverse engineer the security on this portion of the PS3's o/s, access to which they did not have before.
This could be the first sign of the public being able to take back a little bit of control. For years we have been to take what we are given and like it. But now that consumers are getting money back from the retailer, then pressure put onto the manufacturer, we wont take it lying down any more.
Precisely Connor. It would be a much welcomed changed IMO to see customers retake some of their purchasing power, and begin to re-balance the pendulum of power that swings between us and the corporations. Regardless of the cavalier attitude displayed by Mark, the point is not as to whether there are ten or ten thousand, etc. customers whom are unfairly affected by strong arm corporate tactics. The point is that the product no longer functions precisely as advertised and/or fails to function as promised if one does not accept an update (which, if that is the case, it can easily be argued is not an "optional update" carried out in fair spirit of existing commercial laws).
@Mark:
Just because you, Mark and some others, may not use Linux or what-have-you does not equate with others not using it, nor should it automatically mean that it's okay for those people to have their rights trampled. If that is the case then I'd love to hear your, and others', comments on such matters when the time comes for your rights and your interests to be trampled upon. I'm guessing the tune would change significantly at that point.
Oh he is very vocal about MSoft and their dodgy stuff although Sony seem to do no wrong.
wwinterj, I think you've fundamentally missed the point;
Directive 1999/44/EC states that goods must "be fit for the purpose which the consumer requires them and which was made known to the seller at the time of purchase"
The guy could have quite legitimately purchased his PS3 for more than one purpose - OtherOS installation, and the use of the online services advertised as part of the PS3 package. Just because he bought it for one feature doesn't mean that was the only feature he bought it for.
However, Sony's removal of one of those features does still constitute a violation of the directive - although confusingly the responsibility lies with Amazon.
Personally, I think this is a huge breakthrough and I hope it prompts a slew of refund claims. If anyone can put pressure on a company better than a consumer, it's a p**sed off (and MAJOR) reseller like Amazon.
Not sure if this was the same guy but if you read through all the geohotps3 blog for yesterday there is a guy on there bragging how he got a part refund for his console, kept the console and now can use other o/s on his console thanks to the custom firmware...
Ha! The guy in the story used the law that I quoted in my thread here: http://forums.computerandvideogames.com/viewtopic.php?t=107197&highlight= So I would just like to say f**k you to: Sinthetic ffcoppolla
This could be the first sign of the public being able to take back a little bit of control. For years we have been to take what we are given and like it. But now that consumers are getting money back from the retailer, then pressure put onto the manufacturer, we wont take it lying down any more.
Precisely Connor. It would be a much welcomed changed IMO to see customers retake some of their purchasing power, and begin to re-balance the pendulum of power that swings between us and the corporations. Regardless of the cavalier attitude displayed by Mark, the point is not as to whether there are ten or ten thousand, etc. customers whom are unfairly affected by strong arm corporate tactics. The point is that the product no longer functions precisely as advertised and/or fails to function as promised if one does not accept an update (which, if that is the case, it can easily be argued is not an "optional update" carried out in fair spirit of existing commercial laws).
@Mark:
Just because you, Mark and some others, may not use Linux or what-have-you does not equate with others not using it, nor should it automatically mean that it's okay for those people to have their rights trampled. If that is the case then I'd love to hear your, and others', comments on such matters when the time comes for your rights and your interests to be trampled upon. I'm guessing the tune would change significantly at that point.
AND HERE IS YOUR CAPTAIN MICHAEL 'MORAL' HIGHGROUND!! WELCOME TO THE GOOD SHIP 'HIGH HORSE!!!
Seriously man, I can't even be bottomd reading your 'putting the world to rights' tripe any longer....
I think you've somewhat missed the point - he didn't have to return his PS3; he just got a 20% refund, and kept the console. If he'd wanted to, he could have returned it for a full refund.
It never said that in this article. If that is the case then that is great. Why not rape them for all they have?
wwinterj, I think you've fundamentally missed the point;
Directive 1999/44/EC states that goods must "be fit for the purpose which the consumer requires them and which was made known to the seller at the time of purchase"
There was no point missed at all. At the time of purchase he got what he paid for. It was sold as Advertised.
Futhermore:
our terms and conditions clearly state that we have the right to revise the PS3's settings and features in order to prevent access to unauthorised or pirated content.'
This is correct as it says so at the begining of every PS3 firmwire update. The guy would have got at least one of these updates within a year or even the 30 days for that matter. If he was unhappy with that then he should have got a full refund and took the thing back but he didn't. He is just making money of it.
However I can't blame the guy if Amazon are stupid enough to give him a 20% refund. I would have done the same.
Woah there fellas. Me and KVD aint always seen eye to eye about things in the past but im standing firmly by him on this one. Sony were tw@ts for taking it off us. I needed a new ps3 not long ago and along with the BC the OS was the reason i sought out a 60GB. I remember coding space invaders using lynux on ps2 (it was on the demo disc that came with it if you didnt know) and it took me back to my childhood of spending hours coding on my old acorn electron to make little games. Yeah you can use pcs for that,but think of the kids who might not have access to one,but have a ps3 in their rooms....As i say from tiny acorn (electrons) do mighty oaks grow.
And hows the old saying go....blah blah blah and after everything else had gone and i cried for help,there was nobody else left to hear my moans of unfairness. If you dont get it ill find it out in full. Might wake a few up
Woah there fellas. Me and KVD aint always seen eye to eye about things in the past but im standing firmly by him on this one. Sony were tw@ts for taking it off us. I needed a new ps3 not long ago and along with the BC the OS was the reason i sought out a 60GB. I remember coding space invaders using lynux on ps2 (it was on the demo disc that came with it if you didnt know) and it took me back to my childhood of spending hours coding on my old acorn electron to make little games. Yeah you can use pcs for that,but think of the kids who might not have access to one,but have a ps3 in their rooms....As i say from tiny acorn (electrons) do mighty oaks grow.
And hows the old saying go....blah blah blah and after everything else had gone and i cried for help,there was nobody else left to hear my moans of unfairness. If you dont get it ill find it out in full. Might wake a few up
This could be the first sign of the public being able to take back a little bit of control. For years we have been to take what we are given and like it. But now that consumers are getting money back from the retailer, then pressure put onto the manufacturer, we wont take it lying down any more.
Precisely Connor. It would be a much welcomed changed IMO to see customers retake some of their purchasing power, and begin to re-balance the pendulum of power that swings between us and the corporations. Regardless of the cavalier attitude displayed by Mark, the point is not as to whether there are ten or ten thousand, etc. customers whom are unfairly affected by strong arm corporate tactics. The point is that the product no longer functions precisely as advertised and/or fails to function as promised if one does not accept an update (which, if that is the case, it can easily be argued is not an "optional update" carried out in fair spirit of existing commercial laws).
@Mark:
Just because you, Mark and some others, may not use Linux or what-have-you does not equate with others not using it, nor should it automatically mean that it's okay for those people to have their rights trampled. If that is the case then I'd love to hear your, and others', comments on such matters when the time comes for your rights and your interests to be trampled upon. I'm guessing the tune would change significantly at that point.
AND HERE IS YOUR CAPTAIN MICHAEL 'MORAL' HIGHGROUND!! WELCOME TO THE GOOD SHIP 'HIGH HORSE!!!
Seriously man, I can't even be bottomd reading your 'putting the world to rights' tripe any longer....
And yet you took the time to reply while completely failing to address the heart of the matter. Bravo Mark. Typed like a true fanboy. What exactly is the problem with another person getting their legally protected rights enforced in this case? It doesn't hurt you. You can still update and choose not to get a refund if you wish. See how that works? The freedom to choose and to have the right to do so. It's a beautiful thing.
Ha! The guy in the story used the law that I quoted in my thread here: http://forums.computerandvideogames.com/viewtopic.php?t=107197&highlight= So I would just like to say f**k you to: Sinthetic ffcoppolla
European law responsibility is placed on retailers and not product manufacturers
That's why Amazon and not Sony partially refunded his money.
So errr, f**k you too, you little saddo.
Back to posting threads with screens comparing the PS3 version to the 360 version and making out you're not a fanboy (honest!!!) for you, methinks.
Back to posting threads with screens comparing the PS3 version to the 360 version and making out you're not a fanboy (honest!!!) for you, methinks.
So I'm a Sony fanboy for critising Sony, what the f**k are you on? Oh hang, on its becuase I compaired a multi format game and said that it looks better on the PS3. Ah yes! I must be a fanboy for making saying that.
GeoHotz once said that hacking isn't about getting more than you payed for, it's about making sure you get what you payed for.
And it has never been more wrong. The OtherOS function is another example of that if one puppy bites the hand that brings food. No puppies get any food.
Jesus this is a stupid article but whats even worse is some of the comments... boys ye chattin crap aba sumit that no one used on their PS3s because and Xbot had the first word in a PS3 article... Come on boys sort it out
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
