I remember at that time I was so excited thinking I'd get to use my PS3 as my main machine, my game console, and for bitcoin mining -- and a bluray player. I desperately wanted it to be my entertainment center for all purposes.

Sony didn't want me to be a happy customer.

You need proof as in legal proof, i.e. a paper saying "I used it".

At the time I remember there was a team working on hashing functions in hand-tuned assembly for the PS3's Cell processor that would take advantage of it's vector capabilities. I wanted to take their implementations and learn assembly well enough to write my own bitcoin miner. This was long before ASICs became a thing so the PS3 looked like a big money-making opportunity. :-)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Hotz

I don't know much about him, so I won't disagree with how you feel about him but I did follow the whole Sony/other OS mess and Sony was wrong. Wrong to get rid of those features and wrong to go after the people that tried to restore them.

Heck, most won't even have the PlayStation.

What proof would users even reasonably be able to furnish?

Though, given the poor excuse for remediation, I don't have strong hopes for any such tool.

From a lay person's perspective, this is a ridiculous settlement - if there's a way to detect if it was used, Sony should be required to issue a refund for the full price at the time of sale. Putting aside people looking for an easy paycheck, the few who actually were tinkering with the OtherOS option (and the labs who used it, since there were a few iirc), deserve to have a refund. $55 is hardly just given the offense and the cost to the buyers.

If you think you deserve better, you're free to opt out of this and sue them yourself.

My statement was to say two separate thoughts:

1. The settlement is ridiculous. 2. Instead of the settlement, Sony should be required to issue refunds.

Basically, I'm annoyed by the existence of the settlement itself, and suggesting that the legal team behind the suit is being negligent in favor of a hefty paycheck.

And $55 seems like a pretty good settlement for someone who used the Other OS functionality. Remember, that's a settlement value--the average loss of value of the PS3 to class members discounted by the probability of success at trial.

I understand the practical problems with providing the required proof, but this seems like a much more reasonable way of structuring a settlement than the potential alternatives.

This seems like a ... sidegrade.

Why? Maybe they didn't care at the time, but maybe they would later, or their kids would, or they would get a better deal when they resold it. Why should Sony get away with robbing their customers of advertised functionality with the excuse that they "didn't use it anyway"?

Maybe someday we'll see it with car manufacturers. "Your passenger door has been disabled. Please provide proof that you carry passengers with you to get a token reimbursement for the trouble."

In fact, what's the point of punitive damages in general if not to punish the defendants in civil suits?