Kotaku 
Enter your username and password.
Denver, 4:37 PM
Sun Nov 22
17 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip us: tips@kotaku.com
Editor-In-Chief:
Brian Crecente
Email | AIM | Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Stephen Totilo
Email | AIM | Twitter
Senior Editor:
Michael McWhertor
Email | AIM | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor, Japan:
Brian Ashcraft
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, East Coast:
Michael Fahey
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, Oceania:
Luke Plunkett
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, Weekends:
Owen Good
Email | AIM | Twitter
Correspondent, San Francisco:
AJ Glasser
Email | AIM | Twitter
Columnist:
Leigh Alexander
Columnist:
Tim Rogers
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/05/09
Granted, 2.80 no longer gives the user access to PSN, doesn’t run games that require 3.00 or higher, doesn't allow the user to download patches/updates for games that might need them, and doesn't allow access to online gaming or internet browsing, but the risk of upgrading to 3.01 has left others, and could leave this user with even less.
The ability to continually enjoy currently owned PS3 titles, Blu-ray discs, currently installed PSN media purchased, photos uploaded via the Flash memory reader, and pre-3.00 games sitting on store shelves, seems to be a better option than forking over even more money if 3.01 bricks the console or deep-sixes the Blu-ray drive.
Tough still was the decision to maroon $35 in credit on the PSN store, being that 2.80 no longer allows PSN users to spend money. Realistically this amount can be viewed as a small severance fee forked over to hopefully secure a continually functional home media console, and doesn't warrant as much fuss as the $150 required for repair, or the $300-$350 to purchase a Slim.
Cutting the losses at this point might seem to some like a drastic decision, but functionality is the main reason the console was purchased, and hopefully preserving this functionality by sticking with 2.80 will only sting when games like Gran Turismo 5, Dead Rising 2, or Criterion's Need for Speed are released later on.
Ultimately firmware 3.01 is by no means mandatory, as staying with 2.80 is 100% possible. The only thing mandatory about 3.01 is the thought you should give to whether or not you have an extra $150-$350 to get back on board in the event of a problem, or whether or not you can live without certain features, games, or content if you decide to stay with 2.80. #ps3
11/05/09
I really think this is probably more like a 1 in 100,000 thing as opposed to say, RRoD which is like 4 in 5 historically. Clearly there is some amount of correlation with the updates, but the vast majority seem to be alright.
Of course, it's not like I'd step up and reimburse you if you updated and it bricked, but I'd put my own system through it again and again. I think the odds are probably much higher that you'd get into a crash driving your car on any given day than bricking a PS3 with a software update, and while you'd stand to lose a lot more from it, you'd still drive, right? #ps3
11/05/09
And when I called Sony about the first one, I asked if I could use a CD cleaner? Would void the warranty. Vacuum cleaner? Void the warranty. Filters? Compressed air? All void the warranty.
Finally, I asked how the hell I was supposed to get the dust OUT. I was told that the PS2 does not collect dust. I said, "I can see it". I was told I was mistaken.
I've also gone through over a dozen controllers, all first-party, and at least that many memory cards. In fact, there's no way to re-format the memory card without using third party software. Pathetic.
I have no doubt this is Sony's fault, and Sony has been a colossal jackass about acknowledging their own bad designs for years. And it's not like 3.0 was fool-proof, there were a lot of glitches. If they can't even properly test their firmware for basic functionality, how can anyone assume they tested for hardware compatibility or real-life operation? I guarantee they tested this only on brand-fucking-new systems and that was it.
Fuck 'em, they should either fix their screwups or pay a penalty. Welcome to real life, Sony. This is what it feels like to be dicked. We call that irony. #ps3
11/05/09
11/05/09
My first PS3 (a original 80 GB model, backwards compatible) stopped reading discs completely after a system update.
Upon some research I found out this was a pretty common issue with these models, so I thought that the blu ray lens dying right after a system update was just a coincidence.
Here's the point: I don't live in the U.S, so I couldn't send it to sony for repairs. And I paid almost $800 for that system. Yeah, shit is expensive in my country.
So, I sold it to someone for about $300, and bought a brand new PS3 at almost $600. And no backwards compatibility at all this time.
If my current PS3 broke after a firmware update, I'd be incredibly pissed, too, and I would try to sue Sony for that. Anyway, I couldn't do it, because I don't live in the U.S.
To add insult to injury, the Sony store were I purchased my new PS3 has closed, and I haven't seen any other Sony stores where I live, so if my PS3 breaks, I don't know if I'll be able to apply the warranty, because where could I do it? :(
The worst part is, that I would completely buy ANOTHER PS3 if my current one stopped working and hadn't any way to repair it or to apply the warranty, so I'm part of the problem. Consumism really sucks. #ps3
11/05/09
11/05/09
11/06/09
11/05/09
So Sony is most likely in the right on these court cases... whilst technically the firmware does make the problems manifest themselves, they aren't their initial cause! #ps3
11/05/09
11/05/09
As for it being entirely Sony's fault, that I disagree with... if it's a bug directly caused by the firmware, fair enough, that's their fault, but if the firmware merely bugs out due to bits of hardware being inaccessible because of damage caused by dust, moisture or nesting cockroaches within the hardware, which is what I was really getting at in my initial post, then sony/microsoft shouldn't be held accountable. #ps3
11/05/09
11/05/09
Here's a commonly mentioned story:
[www.destructoid.com]
Though according to a friend of mine who used to work repairing and modding consoles, they used to get at least 5 consoles a week which had stopped working because they were crammed with cockroaches who were presumably trying to keep warm, nestled in the belly of a playstation. gross, eh? #ps3
11/05/09
11/05/09
11/05/09
11/05/09
This is speculation and nothing more, you offer no solid proof. There may be issues with firmware upgrade but to even consider the notion that Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo knowingly corrupts a very small percentage of users systems by it's own hand is just an ignorant statement to make on it's own.
What next, Sony is responsible for 9/11? Microsoft threw votes away for McCain? C'mon. #ps3
11/05/09
11/04/09
Seriously, this is a pretty big issue. I've read of numerous threads on several sites as well as articles in engadget and others that have been claiming 3.01 bricked the system by overpowering the BR drive and causing it to fail.
I guarantee this was not just a coincidence. Too many people have been complaining of this exact same problem at the exact same time frame. #ps3
11/04/09
"SCE AND ITS AFFILIATED COMPANIES EXCLUDE ALL LIABILITY FOR ANY LOSS OF DATA, LOSS OF PROFIT, OR ANY OTHER LOSS OR DAMAGE SUFFERED BY YOU OR ANY THIRD PARTY, WHETHER DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL HOWEVER ARISING, AS A RESULT OF ACCESSING TO OR USING THE SYSTEM SOFTWARE OR ANY OF THE CONTENTS, PROGRAMS, FEATURES OR SERVICES ON OR PROVIDED THROUGH THE SYSTEM SOFTWARE. SO LONG AS THIS PROVISION IS ENFORCEABLE IN YOUR JURISDICTION, THE FOREGOING LIMITATIONS, EXCLUSIONS AND DISCLAIMERS SHALL APPLY TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, EVEN IF ANY REMEDY FAILS OF ITS ESSENTIAL PURPOSE."
I guess they didn't read the click-through-licence... #ps3
11/04/09
"SO LONG AS THIS PROVISION IS ENFORCEABLE IN YOUR JURISDICTION, THE FOREGOING LIMITATIONS, EXCLUSIONS AND DISCLAIMERS SHALL APPLY TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW"
ie: if you live in a jurisdiction with any form of consumer rights, this entire sections means jack shit.
11/04/09
As far as I'm aware, a lot of jurisdictions have evoked laws against blanket exclusion of liability statements.
11/04/09
11/04/09
You just got pwned and you provided your own whoopin' stick. #ps3
11/04/09
11/04/09
In any case, assuming they're in a jurisdiction that provides consumer protection laws, wouldn't it be better to go to the consumer protection group rather than risk losing money on a civil action?
Unfortunately the article doesn't shed light as to what jurisdiction this is in or what state the papers have been served. #ps3
11/04/09
11/04/09
11/04/09
11/04/09
11/04/09
11/04/09
You're just way more elegant than I.
;)
11/04/09
The way I see it, if Sony won't fix their mistake and have to be taken to court, they should fix it and cover legal charges.
That's just ridiculous to expect the consumer to pay out of pocket for a technical issue caused by the manufacturer. #ps3
11/04/09
PS: I can say that, I play a doctor on TV. #ps3
11/04/09
11/04/09
I received my medical training from Trauma Center, my legal training from Phoenix Wright and my combat training from Call of Duty.
Any subject you have, I can act as an expert on. #ps3
11/04/09
11/04/09
;) #ps3
11/05/09
11/04/09
MS did it to avoid a class action lawsuit, simple as that. Their console is known for its failures... the PS3 is not. I am a 60gb owner and have not had any issue with my console. #ps3
11/04/09
11/04/09
So, just because Sony has a lower failure rate, they should not be responsible for those failures?
People buy a product on the basis that it works, if it stops working because of something the manufacturer did (ie, release faulty firmware), then it should be the manufacturer's responsibility to cover the cost of fixing the problem.
To use an example from the last time this issue came up, Sony charging people to repair consoles bricked by the firmware is like someone driving into your house and breaking a wall, then charging you to fix it.
If Sony is at fault (which is for the courts to decide), then they should be liable for the cost of repairs.
Consumers have rights, we should be applauding those who fight for them, not cheering for the company abusing them. #ps3
11/04/09
Don't lie. I know your type. Right now, you're full of bravado yet as soon as you have a problem you'll be up there front and centered trying to cash in on their lawsuit. No question. #ps3
11/04/09
11/04/09
11/04/09
11/04/09
Joke? #ps3
11/04/09
Don't think it is, but I doubt it's a coincidence. Since BD drives were affected by the update, it's likely certain versions of the drive were at fault and not the firmware. #ps3
11/05/09
11/04/09
11/04/09
It's to deter shady business practices! #ps3
11/04/09
11/04/09
If you want a thorough examination of the issue, I would recommend this article- it's long but worth the read:
[marcgalanter.net]
But to summarize, in short: If there wasn't any punitive damages- a larger company like Sony for instance, can continue to do whatever best helps their profit motive without consequence- say not repairing consoles they accidentally bricked- simply because it's in their best interest to do so. If someone is to say, sue for $150- Sony can afford the legal resources to stall- subsequently leading to a dismissal and deterring all future lawsuits because the plaintiff pursuing it would find the legal cost to pursue it would be more expensive than the initial $150 they were seeking in the first place. Others seeing this would expect the same result and thus would not seek compensation because Sony has demonstrated the avenue to do so is impractical and expensive even when the company or Sony here, is in the wrong.
Furthermore, without punitive damages, Sony and other companies could continue carrying out whatever it is they are doing without any major consequences. For example, they might find that rolling out a comprehensive repair program would be more costly than settling the odd lawsuit here and there.
In this case, for a gaming system, the cost of not having punitive damages maybe inconsequential as it's only a gaming system made for entertainment but when it comes to something with more gravity, like say the Ford Pinto case, punitive damages are absolutely necessary. Companies have to be held accountable for their products.
During the 1970s (?), Ford had released a car model that would literally blow up if the car was rear ended. Upon realizing this, the Ford Co. had figured out that the cost of dealing with potential lawsuits would be far less than having a nationwide recall program (at a measly $11 a pop to fix the manufactures defect- some retaining clip or something- can't remember+ bad publicity) so they kept the issue mum.
Sufficient to say, a lot of people got hurt and/or killed because of that decision. This is why punitive damages are so important. It is to punish companies from doing it again. A $10M lawsuit against Ford co. would hardly be a blip on their day to day earnings but a $100M judgement would make them think twice next time they realize their product could potentially harm the lives of their customers.
I have no idea why people here and in the states so often take the side of the big companies (my analysis is probably because the mass media and most news outlets are run by "big business"- spinning cases with a few lines and quotes taken out of context is notoriously easy when you have the billions to back it up). A lot of these cases which while prima facie, seem frivolous actually hold a lot of merit when you have the chance to read the actual court documents. These laws are here to protect the customers, the consumers, the little guys. Sad to say, the companies, the tort reformist and their brands have you eating out of their hands.
11/04/09
11/04/09
You must really hate politicians then #ps3
11/04/09
11/04/09
11/04/09
So what are you saying? My friend had his PS3 bricked from a firmware update- all he did was turn it on and downloaded the new update and the system froze and then stopped turning on. How is it his fault? And why should he be required to pay $150? #ps3