Anonymous strikes again

[Opa Opa]

Oh man. Sony must have paid off that judge pretty good.

"As a legal matter... plaintiffs have failed to allege facts or articulate a theory on which Sony may be held liable," Judge Seeborg wrote.

Sounds like there isn't a case.

[MrPopo]

Oh man. Sony must have paid off that judge pretty good.

"As a legal matter... plaintiffs have failed to allege facts or articulate a theory on which Sony may be held liable," Judge Seeborg wrote.

Sounds like there isn't a case.

You're focusing on the wrong details. The judge ruled against what Inazuma wants, therefore he must have been bribed.

[Opa Opa]

You're focusing on the wrong details. The judge ruled against what Inazuma wants, therefore he must have been bribed.

D'oh!

You're right! How could I forget. Thanks for the correction.

[dsheinem]

You're focusing on the wrong details. The judge ruled against what Inazuma wants, therefore he must have been bribed.

that is the only logical explanation. nothing else would be rational.

Inazuma, tell me - have you really enjoyed using your Other OS this past year instead of playing new PS3/PSN games? There are a lot of Japanese imports I am sure you'd probably have enjoyed, and unless you are getting a lot of use out of Other OS, I don't see the point in holding on to it. Besides, there are always ways to install it later on if you need it for some reason.

If it is simply a principled stand, I get that. But you always seem to think that getting the most personal enjoyment possible out of any situation is another position worth holding, and it seems that they may be in conflict here.

[Inazuma]

You're focusing on the wrong details. The judge ruled against what Inazuma wants, therefore he must have been bribed.

It's true that Sony removed the Other OS feature in a required firmware update. That was a feature that we paid for on launch. You can't just take it away like that.

If you chose not to update your PS3 and lose Other OS, you were unable to access PSN. That's not right.

The judge ruled in favor for the bad guys, so yeah, it is likely that he was bribed. That's how the world works, you know. Money is everything.

[Jmustang1968]

Other OS lawsuit dismissed

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011 ... t-sony.ars

Oh man. Sony must have paid off that judge pretty good.

My PS3 still hasn't be updated. Other OS remains intact. I haven't bought a single PS3 game (not even used) since. You may have won this court case Sony, but that doesn't mean I will start buying PS3 games again. Fuck you.

Nintendo doesn't offer other os features on their consoles yet you buy their games right?

Companies are better off having less features to begin with, if they ever try to change or remove they get sued.

[MrPopo]

You're focusing on the wrong details. The judge ruled against what Inazuma wants, therefore he must have been bribed.

It's true that Sony removed the Other OS feature in a required firmware update. That was a feature that we paid for on launch. You can't just take it away like that.

If you chose not to update your PS3 and lose Other OS, you were unable to access PSN. That's not right.

The judge ruled in favor for the bad guys, so yeah, it is likely that he was bribed. That's how the world works, you know. Money is everything.

Software can be changed after launch with patches. This includes removal of features. I'm fairly certain any EULA out there allows for that, so Sony is abiding by the contract you agreed to.

Furthermore, the PSN terms of use state that you have to be using the most up-to-date firmware to access it. So Sony is very much in the right to keep you off if you don't want to update your firmware.

The judge ruled in favor of the law. The judge even commented that what Sony did is probably a douche move, but it's fully legal. Usually when people bribe judges it's to get them to ignore the law, not follow it.

[Inazuma]

Inazuma, tell me - have you really enjoyed using your Other OS this past year instead of playing new PS3/PSN games? There are a lot of Japanese imports I am sure you'd probably have enjoyed, and unless you are getting a lot of use out of Other OS, I don't see the point in holding on to it. Besides, there are always ways to install it later on if you need it for some reason.

If it is simply a principled stand, I get that. But you always seem to think that getting the most personal enjoyment possible out of any situation is another position worth holding, and it seems that they may be in conflict here.

I have never used Other OS, and I am sad about being unable to play PS3 games and use PSN.

More important than my own personal enjoyment is doing what is best for everyone. I don't hesitate to make personal sacrifices in order to help everyone else. I'm not your typical selfish idiot gamer. If giving up on the PS3 will do the most good for everyone, so be it.

Video games are my favorite thing in life, but some things are more important than that. Our rights, being one of them.

[Inazuma]

Software can be changed after launch with patches. This includes removal of features. I'm fairly certain any EULA out there allows for that, so Sony is abiding by the contract you agreed to.

Furthermore, the PSN terms of use state that you have to be using the most up-to-date firmware to access it. So Sony is very much in the right to keep you off if you don't want to update your firmware.

The judge ruled in favor of the law. The judge even commented that what Sony did is probably a douche move, but it's fully legal. Usually when people bribe judges it's to get them to ignore the law, not follow it.

So? Just because something is legal, doesn't make it OK. Bribing a congressman to vote in favor of a bill is completely legal too, but it's not OK.

"This company is fucking me over! Oh wait, that's legal? Oh OK. I don't mind it then."
Sorry Popo. I can't think like that.

[dsheinem]

I have never used Other OS, and I am sad about being unable to play PS3 games and use PSN.

More important than my own personal enjoyment is doing what is best for everyone. I don't hesitate to make personal sacrifices in order to help everyone else. I'm not your typical selfish idiot gamer. If giving up on the PS3 will do the most good for everyone, so be it.


Video games are my favorite thing in life, but some things are more important than that. Our rights, being one of them.

Ok, fair enough - I was just wondering where you were on priorities here, as you've made strong cases for both principles in the past. I see the elimination of OtherOS as a mode through which to strengthen security and curb piracy, both of which would be harmful to the bottom line of a greater percentage of gamers. Yes, it is choosing between two evils, but the loss of OtherOS - to me - is the lesser evil that effects fewer gamers. I have no problem sleeping at night, and am not by any stretch some "selfish idiot gamer".