
Sony agrees to pay millions to gamers to settle PS3 Linux debacle - bpierre
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/06/if-you-used-to-run-linux-on-your-ps3-you-could-get-55-from-sony/
======
codys
> To get the $55, a gamer "must attest under oath to their purchase of the
> product and installation of Linux, provide proof of their purchase or serial
> number and PlayStation Network Sign-in ID, and submit some proof of their
> use of the Other OS functionality." To get the $9, PS3 owners must submit a
> claim that, at the time they bought their console, they "knew about the
> Other OS, relied upon the Other OS functionality, and intended to use the
> Other OS functionality."

I seriously doubt very much money will be payed out to users if this
settlement is approved.

I'm sure the lawyers would be happy with it though:

> The deal also provides up to $2.25 million in attorneys' fees for the
> lawyers who brought suit.

That payout is equal to around ~40909 users who are able to prove they used
the Other OS functionality. I'm doubtful that many exist.

~~~
coroutines
What really pisses me off about this is I can't provide proof anymore that I
made use of OtherOS. The later updates removed that functionality.

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.

~~~
ars
You don't need proof as in mathematical proof.

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

~~~
codys
Attestation ("I used it") and "proof" are used separately in the quote from
the article, implying that the proof must be more that just attestation.

------
nfoz
I specifally followed the PS3 market carefully, and made sure to buy a used
PS3 that had the capability to install Linux. Installing it was a fun side-
project, although I didn't use it much. Then I bought a game I really wanted
to play, but it required the firmware update that would destroy the Linux.
I've been upset, and was seriously considering buying another used PS3 just to
be able to play my game on _that_.

So, I'm glad this finally won. I was disenfranchised by their obnoxious
actions. Guiltily, I admit that the $55 I get back will probably go towards a
used PS3 so I can play the game alongside my Linux-enabled PS3 :)

------
theandrewbailey
Sony is the best example that I can think of for manufacturers whose products
have fewer features over time. Remember that PS3s also had PS2 compatibility?

~~~
LanceH
I chose the ps3 because it had usb controllers. I thought that would make the
controllers forward compatible to ps4.

I'm done with consoles.

~~~
baby
forward compatible with a console released 7 years apart?

It shows how different the clientele of Nintendo is, since they change the
controllers at every new iteration.

~~~
LanceH
For a controller, sure. The current controller has all the buttons the old
controller has. They are both USB/bluetooth. Most games need a one or two
sticks and the standard buttons. There is no reason they couldn't develop a
system to cover a grand total of _two_ controller specs, both of which they
created and which probably have a 90+% overlap.

I'll stick to my PC, where every controller works.

~~~
SixSigma
> I'll stick to my PC, where every controller works.

Your PC still has a 15 pin gameport and a 9/25 pin serial?

------
Kristine1975
It would have been better if Sony had to put the Linux support back in. What
good are $55 (after jumping through lots of hoops) if you want to run Linux on
your PS3?

~~~
wmf
I wouldn't be surprised if Sony _couldn 't_ fix their hypervisor. They may
have lost the source code, or perhaps the person who wrote it was transferred
to the pachinko division.

~~~
rkho
Pretty sure that's Konami you're thinking of :)

------
clarry
Software developers beware: removing support for a niche feature in your
product can get you into big trouble.

~~~
gshulegaard
I'm sorry, but I think this comment severely misrepresents what happened and
the precedent it helped establish.

First, the firmware update didn't remove support for a feature, it explicitly
blocked certain user space software. It forced consumers to use Sony's PS OS
rather than an alternative like Linux.

Second, it helps establish precedence that hardware vendors can have
control/part ownership of hardware after you purchase it. Gone are the days
where the computer you purchase pre-assembled is your own. Now vendors can
apparently control what you decide to do with hardware that you purchase. Sony
isn't alone in this, Microsoft has been moving towards this for a long time,
and Apple is probably the worst offender, but they are joined by most hardware
vendors at this point.

It's anti-consumer behavior. It probably shouldn't even be legal, but yet
corporations can get away with it, so they continue to do it since it aligns
with their best interests (barriers to competition).

~~~
slavik81
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.

~~~
peeters
> 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.

~~~
slavik81
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.

~~~
peeters
> 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.

------
mtgx
Sony should adopt Linux and Vulkan already (maybe for PS4 Neo?). It needs to
be able to tout some compatibility with other platforms, in the same way
Microsoft is doing it now with Xbox/Win10/DX12. Sony could tout
Android/Linux/Windows 7+ compatibility with Vulkan.

~~~
pjmlp
Vulkan doesn't do anything new that PS APIs haven't been already doing since
the PS3.

They already do the same that Microsoft does with their APIs for PS3, PS4 and
to smaller extent PSP and Vita.

