News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Sony agrees to pay millions to gamers to settle PS3 Linux... by slavik81 on Tuesday June 21, 2016 @02:51PM (#11948342)
How does it imply any sort of loss of ownership? They removed Linux support in an update. The update was not forced. You got the choice to install it or not.

If you wanted to decline the update and keep using Linux, you could. All your existing games would continue working, too, but you couldn't play games released after the update (which require the newer firmware). Nor could you play online, as having all updates is a requirement of connectng to their online service.

I have a 60GB PS3, but I agree with the grandparent that a legal obligation to maintain support indefinitely would set a bad precedent.

Re:Sony agrees to pay millions to gamers to settle PS3 Linux... by peeters on Tuesday June 21, 2016 @03:19PM (#11948619)
> The update was not forced. You got the choice to install it or not.

Some choice:

> However, without updating, console owners couldn't connect to the PlayStation Network, play any games online, play any games or Blu-ray movies that required the new firmware, play any files kept on a media server, or download any future updates.

If you buy a product on a claim that it performs N features, and a future update forces you to choose which subset of N features you would like to keep, the company has still failed on their claim.

Re:Sony agrees to pay millions to gamers to settle PS3 Linux... by slavik81 on Tuesday June 21, 2016 @04:04PM (#11948983)
Those things also all happen when a platform is no longer supported. So, if Sony wanted to shut down their games division tomorrow, how many new games would you require they release for the PS4 and how long should they be required to keep running their servers?

While I think there's an argument for being required to allow online access to those within warranty, it makes way more sense to just guarantee it plays the games it played when you got it. It's something that consumers could easily understand and depend on.

Re:Sony agrees to pay millions to gamers to settle PS3 Linux... by peeters on Tuesday June 21, 2016 @05:07PM (#11949413)
> Those things also all happen when a platform is no longer supported.

That's not a given. Some of the features require no ongoing support, like playing media from a local server.

> So, if Sony wanted to shut down their games division tomorrow (...) how long should they be required to keep running their servers?

Leave the concrete numbers to the judges and juries. But if today I bought a $700 console from an authorized dealer, and tomorrow it was a brick, I'm pretty sure I'd have a case for getting a big chunk of that money back. If in a year it was mostly a brick, I'd expect less money back. Exact numbers in these cases come down to negotiation.

All this is tangential of course because Sony didn't stop supporting the platform.

Re:Sony agrees to pay millions to gamers to settle PS3 Linux... by gshulegaard on Tuesday June 21, 2016 @02:58PM (#11948400)
It's placing an artificial barrier on user software choices at the firmware level. There was no reason Linux couldn't run on a PS3, except Sony said so.

Second, it wasn't optional for people, like me, who bought a PS3 after the update. Since I bought a console with the restriction, I don't remember exactly whether people could refuse the update. But your points, about not being able to play future games or playing online are also arbitrary restrictions which, while not outright preventing you from refusing the update, are designed to arbitrarily handicap you to the point that not updating is more of a hindrance than not.

Re:Sony agrees to pay millions to gamers to settle PS3 Linux... by slavik81 on Tuesday June 21, 2016 @04:12PM (#11949035)
The entire console market is built on arbitrary restrictions. Running only signed code is a part of the business model of every console. Even when the PS3 supported Linux, there were arbitrary restrictions on access to the GPU to ensure it could not be a good gaming platform.