Kflows00

Gotta be Professor Farnsworth!

Gotta be the guy from Braid, so I can ask him if he understood that game. His name was Tim, I think, but it's been awhile since I played Braid.

@TnOdyssey: You seem stuck on the phrase "game console" when the last time I checked the PS3 was marketed more as a "Home Entertainment Device." By your logic I shouldn't be watching DVDs or BluRays on my "game console" and I shouldn't be able to stream TV shows directly to it from my computer, because it's only supposed to play games.

I am 100% certain that we would not have shelled out that much money at my house for a mere "game console." I paid for a device that was useful to me well beyond playing games.

Understand, I never used the "Other OS" feature and I didn't really plan to, but that doesn't mean I agree with what Sony did.

@EnderG715: EULAs are NOT necessarily legally binding. The "Terms of Service" that you agree to when using software also are not necessarily legally binding.

Yes, Sony can use this as a defense in court, and it will be up to the court to decide what's fair and what isn't.

By your logic a company could put virtually anything in their EULA and then say "you agreed to it" and get away with it.

@xLordOblivionx: They HAVE added a lot of new features, but remember adding those new features are in Sony's best interest. They need to remain competitive in the market, and to remain competitive they have to keep up. To keep their customers' attention they have to continue to update. For games to continue to get better they have to continue to improve technology, and to maintain a happy customer base they have to keep adding new features, because their competitors are too (Microsoft, Nintendo).

So Sony should be cut additional slack because they are doing what they need to do to remain competitive? Why?

Wow...that ended up being a lot longer than I thought it would be ;)

I never used the OtherOS feature. I don't really care that it's gone (I won't miss it at all), but that doesn't mean I think it's right or ok that Sony can remove features as they see fit for their own arbitrary reasons. They say security, but I've read conflicting opinions about whether it was necessary to remove this feature - instead it could have been implemented differently. Whether or not removing this was necessary has nothing to do with my opinions in this post, but it's something to keep in mind.

I agree 100% with these lawsuits...it's not about getting the money (in my opinion, at least), instead it's about defining what rights you feel you have as a consumer. As a consumer I feel it's wrong for a company to sell you something that operates a certain way, then take away that functionality. This is exactly the kind of lawsuit that the civil court system here in the United States SHOULD be used for.

Keep the bigger picture in mind, here. Often our courts and our legal system are behind the times technologically, and other companies will be watching the results of these cases to determine what THEY can do in the future. If the courts determine that Sony was wrong then other companies that provide firmware updates are going to have to take that into account in the future, and this judgment could apply to much more than just gaming consoles.

It's a faulty argument to say that "Sony gives us so much so we should let them do whatever they want." Sony is a BUSINESS and their decisions reflect what will be best for the BUSINESS, not for us. I'm not saying that Sony is a huge evil corporation or that their business practices are bad like some other companies...I'm saying that it's in Sony's best interest to continue to provide firmware updates. It's in their best interests to get people online using the PS3.

I don't buy Sony's products to support them as a company, I buy them because I like them and want to use them. Sony doesn't provide me with products because they want to do something nice for me, they do it because they want my money. There's nothing wrong with this, but remember that that's the case.

Personally I'm shocked that there aren't MORE people against Sony here. Look at the bigger picture...it's not that they removed a feature that no one cares about, it's that they REMOVED A FEATURE THAT THEY PROMISED TO PEOPLE WHEN THEY SOLD THEM THEIR CONSOLES. No one has a problem with that? Do you want the precedent to be that a company can remove things they've promised arbitrarily? Ignoring this completely is tacitly accepting it, and taking the company to court is absolutely the correct thing to do.

So I say congratulations to the people that filed the lawsuit, and while I have no real ill will towards Sony I do hope very much that they lose and that the court sets a precedent that companies can't do things like this. Otherwise I'm scared to consider what might be next. Off the top of my head I can think of 10 different devices in my home that have firmware/software updates from manufacturers (routers, computers, televisions, phones, peripherals, consoles, etc.), and I want ALL of those promised features to be protected.

I agree 100% with everyone here who doesn't care about the social networking features...I don't have accounts on facebook or twitter, and I don't plan on changing that anytime soon.

That said I will be buying this game the day it comes out, literally one of only 2-3 games I'll be buying all year. I think I only bought one game last year too - I just don't spend too much time gaming, but I was hopelessly addicted to the Blur demo, as it proved to be one of the most fun games I've played in a long time. I do love some of the social features - I'll definitely be challenging friends to beat my times on scores, for example, just NOT through facebook or twitter.

Don't blame the game if you get twitter/facebook spam, blame your friends. Game developers are just giving people what they want.

Hope to see lots of you on there playing! It's what I'll be doing the weekend it comes out...

@TONY: It's in Sony's best interests to continue to update the PS3 - the updates add new features and improve functionality, and newer firmware is required to play newer games.

If Sony did stop supporting the PS3 the game developers would not be too happy, because they would be limited in what they could do. The more support and updates they provide the happier the consumer is (or could be), and they want us all to continue spending money on our PS3 for new games, accessories and DLC.

Also keep in mind that Sony is competing with Microsoft and (arguably) Nintendo - as long as their competition offers updates like this they have to as well, or they will no longer be able to offer a product that competes in the market.

B! Definitely B.