Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Do you mean 
Reply
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 11/20/2006
Offline
4375 posts
 

Re: Lawsuits filed in Fed. Court against Sony regarding FW3.21 OtherOs

Aug 25, 2010

ziggurcat wrote:

 


The-Sarge wrote:

But that analogy isn't even close to what Sony is doing in this case is it? 

 

They are not raising a rate on a renewal period.  They are taking away something we have already bought and paid for.  Which cahnges the entire dynamics of the situation.

 


 

of course it is.  

 

costco raising the membership fee with no incentives can be equated to sony removing other OS with no compensation.  

 

it is an analogy, after all, and not a literal translation of the situation at hand.  


 

I'm sorry.  I can't believe what I am reading.  How can you possibly think that your example and what Sony is doing is even remotely close?

 

Your Example is a pricing change of a new contract going forward after the old contract has expired.

 

What Sony is doing is taking away a feature that has already been bought and paid for, after the original sales transaction has been completed.

 

It is not even close to being equitable to your example, nor is it even in the same ball park.  It isn't even the same sport.

 

 

Am I the only one that is experiencing this level of incredulity at the logic that zig is putting forth here?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


 


 


Be One With The Game.

Please use plain text.
Message 831 of 2,398 (1 View)
Reply
0 Likes
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 11/20/2006
Offline
4375 posts
 

Re: Lawsuits filed in Fed. Court against Sony regarding FW3.21 OtherOs

Aug 25, 2010

ziggurcat wrote:

 


The-Sarge wrote:

And there in lies the problem.  This statement, indeed this "distinction" does not apply in the over arching context of this thread. 


 

the problem lies completely in your failure to understand that i was responding to a specific comment, which was equating not updating their PS3 to being banned from the PSN, which was actually a response to the link i posted concerning the recent usb device being detectable and that use of the usb device will result in a ban, which was actually related to recent discussions in this thread.

 

so again... your argument here is completely disparate from what i was discussing with other forum members.   


Sorry, but no.

The problem lies in your complete failure in recognizing (either intentionally or otherwise) that the original "specific comment", to which you felt compelled to respond to, was being used with regards to the over arching context of this entire thread, and not in the context of a stand alone situation, existing separately from the OtherOS removal situation.

 

I understood the context in which the "Specific comment" was being used, as did others.  I don't see why you did not.  If you have any doubts.  Simply ask the person who made said comment what situational context they were referring to.

 

I have read many of your posts in regards to this issue, and noticed a pattern in how you argue.

You latch on to a single point that someone gives, and then you debate against the merits of that single point with arguments that do not take into account, or completely change, the context in which the point was originally given.

And when someone either calls you on it, or tries to bring the original relevant context back into the debate, you accuse them of playing some kind of game, so that you can dismiss what it is that they are saying, and that is exactly what you have done here.

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


 


 


Be One With The Game.

Please use plain text.
Message 832 of 2,398 (1 View)
Reply
0 Likes
Hekseville Citizen
Registered: 11/22/2009
Offline
272 posts
 

Re: Lawsuits filed in Fed. Court against Sony regarding FW3.21 OtherOs

Aug 25, 2010

Seems to only be happening in these discussions if you use a literal side by side comparison...

 

Even I find the analogy to be comparable (I can not say it is exactly the same because it isn't) in that a company took something away from people without any form of compensation.

 

 

 

 

 

Please use plain text.
Message 833 of 2,398 (1 View)
Reply
0 Likes
Fender Bender
Registered: 06/20/2009
Offline
4175 posts
 

Re: Lawsuits filed in Fed. Court against Sony regarding FW3.21 OtherOs

Aug 25, 2010

The-Sarge wrote:

Sorry, but no.

The problem lies in your complete failure in recognizing (either intentionally or otherwise) that the original "specific comment", to which you felt compelled to respond to, was being used with regards to the over arching context of this entire thread 


no, icemonkey's comment was a direct response to the link i posted (it was the only thing he referenced... if you bothered to look at his post), which spoke about the recent USB device being detectable and that the use of the device would result in a ban.  he essentially responded by saying that it didn't matter if he was banned by using the USB device since his PS3 was already "banned" because he decided to stick with FW 3.15 to retain other OS functionality.   

 

so clearly you didn't understand the context of icemonkey's comment (or my response to it). 

Please use plain text.
Message 834 of 2,398 (1 View)
Reply
0 Likes
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 11/20/2006
Offline
4375 posts
 

Re: Lawsuits filed in Fed. Court against Sony regarding FW3.21 OtherOs

Aug 25, 2010

ziggurcat wrote:
  he essentially responded by saying that it didn't matter if he was banned by using the USB device since his PS3 was already "banned" because he decided to stick with FW 3.15 to retain other OS functionality.   

 


I rest my case.

 

The context he was referencing when invoking the term ban was in regards to not updating because of system degradation, due to other OS removal in said update.  Which can be argued is a kin to a ban, as it is an extorted decision forced by Sony.

 

You tried to say this wasn't a ban by stating situations of choosing not to updating, that had nothing to do with the extenuating circumstances of otherOS removal.  Thus changing the dynamics of the situation away from the one that icemonkey was originally commenting on.

 

Thank you for proving my point.

 

 

 

 

 


 


 


 


Be One With The Game.

Please use plain text.
Message 835 of 2,398 (1 View)
Reply
0 Likes
Fender Bender
Registered: 06/20/2009
Offline
4175 posts
 

Re: Lawsuits filed in Fed. Court against Sony regarding FW3.21 OtherOs

Aug 25, 2010

The-Sarge wrote:

I'm sorry.  I can't believe what I am reading.  How can you possibly think that your example and what Sony is doing is even remotely close?

 

Your Example is a pricing change of a new contract going forward after the old contract has expired.

 

What Sony is doing is taking away a feature that has already been bought and paid for, after the original sales transaction has been completed.

 

It is not even close to being equitable to your example, nor is it even in the same ball park.  It isn't even the same sport.

 

 

Am I the only one that is experiencing this level of incredulity at the logic that zig is putting forth here?

 


analogy:

  

1. Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimiliar

2. A comparison based on such similarity

 

to spell it out for you:

 

there is a similarity in some respects between the hypothetical situation of costco raising their membership fees with no incentives to their membership base and sony removing other OS functionality with no compensation to their user base (things that are otherwise dissimilar).  there is also a similarity in some respects to the choice being presented to the consumer:

 

1. pay the membership fee and continue to use costco's services (update and continue to use the PSN)

 

or

 

2. don't pay the membership fee (because you think that the sudden rate of increase to be very unfair and unjustified), which results in you no longer having access to costco's services (don't update , which results in you no longer having access to the PSN)

 

though perhaps a more appropriate "situation" isn't membership renewal, but costco raising the cost of membership half-way through the year and announcing it 5 days before putting it into effect. 

Please use plain text.
Message 836 of 2,398 (1 View)
Reply
0 Likes
I Only Post Everything
Registered: 01/11/2007
Offline
1071 posts
 

Re: Lawsuits filed in Fed. Court against Sony regarding FW3.21 OtherOs

Aug 25, 2010

This has now become among the dumbest debates I've yet come across and it's time for it to end.


From the first definition given by dictionary.com:

 Ban: to prohibit, forbid, or bar;


There's nothing in this definition that cites the source of said ban whether it's enforced as a result of some breach, violation, or other action nor whether taken voluntarily by the banned.  

 

Hence, there is NO argument that staying on FW3.15 for OtherOS isn't an effective ban regardless of whether it's "official" or not.  We are prohibited from PSN and hence banned.  QED

 

Please end this pointless discussion, it adds nothing of value.  If you must continue it please do so in PMs for the benefit of the rest of us trying to stay informed via this thread.

 



 

Please use plain text.
Message 837 of 2,398 (1 View)
Fender Bender
Registered: 06/20/2009
Offline
4175 posts
 

Re: Lawsuits filed in Fed. Court against Sony regarding FW3.21 OtherOs

Aug 25, 2010

The-Sarge wrote:

 

I rest my case.

 

The context he was referencing when invoking the term ban was in regards to not updating because of system degradation, due to other OS removal in said update.  Which can be argued is a kin to a ban, as it is an extorted decision forced by Sony.

 

You tried to say this wasn't a ban by stating situations of choosing not to updating, that had nothing to do with the extenuating circumstances of otherOS removal.  Thus changing the dynamics of the situation away from the one that icemonkey was originally commenting on.

 

Thank you for proving my point.

 


right.... except not updating because you want to retain other OS/don't want to lose functionality is not a ban, nor is it akin to a ban. 

that is making a decision to keep functionality that you feel shouldn't have been removed in the first place and everyone knows that if you don't update your console (no matter what FW revision , no matter what functionality it adds or removes, and no matter what the reason) you don't have access to the PSN.  you are not being banned if you do not have up-to-date FW installed.

no, i was saying that there is a huge difference between not having PSN access due to not up-to-date FW because you don't want to lose functionality and doing something wrong (say, using an unauthorized USB device).  icemonkey was equating the two situations as being the same (i.e. the both result in user being banned).  which they aren't because only the latter is an actual ban.         

 

and you're welcome.  i'm always glad to point out that you don't have any idea what you're talking about.     

Please use plain text.
Message 838 of 2,398 (1 View)
Reply
0 Likes
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 11/20/2006
Offline
4375 posts
 

Re: Lawsuits filed in Fed. Court against Sony regarding FW3.21 OtherOs

Aug 25, 2010

ziggurcat wrote:

right.... except not updating because you want to retain other OS/don't want to lose functionality is not a ban, nor is it akin to a ban. 

no, i was saying that there is a huge difference between not having up-to-date FW because you don't want to lose functionality and doing something wrong (say, using an unauthorized USB device).         

 

and you're welcome.  i'm always glad to point out that you don't have any idea what you're talking about.     


What is a ban?

It is a punishment for doing, or not doing something that those imposing the ban either want or don't want you to do.

 

Not offering me any other way of accessing the PSN without applying an update that removes other OS functionality is a punishment.  It is a punishment for me choosing to retain that feature.  A decision that Sony does not want me to make.  So they used this form of punishment to get me to make the decision they wanted.  There were many ways this could have been handled that would have allowed FW 3.15 to still access the PSN, after other FW versions came out. 

Users would have forfeited any new improvements to the FW that comes with newer FW versions of course, but that would have been a fair choice. 

 

What Sony did was an extorted choice.

"Give me something you value, or I'll take something else you value instead"

In essence "Give me what I want, or you will be punished."

 

The punishment in this case being "you will no longer be able to access the PSN", however they decided to technically accomplish this.  They made the decision that this will be the consequences for making the choice they didn't want me to make.That is a punishment.  That is a ban.

 

 

 As stated by SmokeNMirrors above, I agree, this discussion is dead.  (I didn't see his post until after I replied)

I am done with this debate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


 


 


Be One With The Game.

Please use plain text.
Message 839 of 2,398 (1 View)
Reply
0 Likes
Uncharted Territory
Registered: 12/21/2009
Offline
1475 posts
 

Re: Lawsuits filed in Fed. Court against Sony regarding FW3.21 OtherOs

Aug 25, 2010

Well said, 

 Sony Is pushing an update for there cameras as well. This update seeks to remove several features which I do use like the AVCHD to Blue ray Disk. I read the update and said Heck no. I'll keep the Original software.

 

It seems that Sony likes to give us a taste of something really and then turn around and take it away or in some cases attempt to take it away.

 

This is why after the PS3 gets fixed the only time it goes online will to update the software and that will be only one update. after that it is going offline permanently .

SCEA’s decision to implement Update 3.21 placed Plaintiffs and Class members in a “Hobson’s Choice.” PS3 owners who chose not to install Update 3.21 could no longer access
many of the other important PS3 features including the PSN, the ability to play games online, the ability to access online features, or the ability to play newer PS3 games and/or Blu-ray discs that required Update 3.21. On the other hand, PS3 owners who did install Update 3.21 lost all access to the computer functionality of the PS3’s “Other OS” feature.
Please use plain text.
Message 840 of 2,398 (1 View)
Reply
0 Likes