6 ms·

> On Fri, 2009-08-21 at 09:58 -0700, geoffrey.levand at am.sony.com wrote: >> Please be assured that SCE is committed to continue >> the support for previou

by ks 17y ago

> On Fri, 2009-08-21 at 09:58 -0700, geoffrey.levand at am.sony.com wrote: >> Please be assured that SCE is committed to continue >> the support for previously sold models that have the >> "Install Other OS" feature and that this feature will >> not be disabled in future firmware releases. Source: http://www.haxnetwork.net/2010/03/otheros-will-not-be-removed-from-phat-ps3s/ http://www.haxnetwork.net/2010/03/otheros-will-not-be-remove... I guess this proves that you can't really trust the promises of some companies. We have to keep in mind that a company is driven by profit, and it will always have the highest priority. I have no problems with that in general, but removing features from a product that people have already paid for is not acceptable.

TheBranca18 17y ago
Well in all fairness, you have the option not to upgrade to 3.21 if it really means that much to you. I think a lot of this is blowing in the wind. I'm sure most people don't even know that you can install Linux on the PS3. Plus the RAM limitation (256 mb) along with not having real access to the RSX makes me go eh. I agree that companies shouldn't promise one thing and then two years later do something completely differently.
- sandbagger 17y ago
  No, you DON'T have a choice; if you still want to play online/purchase games from the playstation store/play any new game published after this firmware release/use the chat functionality of the machine. Where is the "fairness"? I purchased the machine specifically because of the multi-function aspect, including being able to run Linux on it. I purchased the games I wished to play, both from the playstation store and retail. It was only 6 months ago that this was posted: "On Fri, 2009-08-21 at 09:58 -0700, geoffrey.levand at am.sony.com wrote: The feature of “Install Other OS” was removed from the new “Slim” PS3 model to focus on delivering games and other entertainment content. Please be assured that SCE is committed to continue the support for previously sold models that have the “Install Other OS” feature and that this feature will not be disabled in future firmware releases." Lying bastard japanese pricks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Zak 17y ago
I understand Sony is driven by profit, though I don't understand how disabling the option to install another OS makes them any more money.
- TheBranca18 17y ago
  It's a reactionary move precipitated by the hacking done by that geohat guy. A lot of gaming companies think that by making a console pirate proof (which the PS3 has been so far) saves them money in the long run. Look at the whole Ubisoft Assassin's Creed 2 mess. In Sony's case I think they partly blame the PSP's problems on piracy and don't want it to happen to the PS3.
  - gizmomagico 17y ago
    A lot of gaming companies think that by making a console pirate proof (which the PS3 has been so far) saves them money in the long run. Surely it's a big boost to game sales when people have no other option than to buy.
    - TheBranca18 17y ago
      Yeah I agree, I'm just saying that sometimes companies make the DRM so restrictive to prevent people from buying that they can anger people. That Assassin's Creed 2 PC mess is a good example of bad DRM.
  - chrischen 17y ago
    There's a difference between what they are doing now and the Ubisoft Mess. With Assassin's Creed they exerted effort to enforce DRM, with the PS3 they are just not making it easier for you to break DRM.
- anigbrowl 17y ago
  I wonder if they can somehow be persuaded to compromise - all future firmware updates limit the owner to running Sony's OS, but if you're prepared to forego the consumer goodies, they'll lift the hypervisor restrictions. As a matter of act, with little or no marketing or other overheads, they could offer an open PS3 for a bit more than the consumer version (say $400), on the understanding that when you purchase it, you are not entitled to support for anything except physical hardware failure. I'm really sad that PS3's potential as a general computing platform have not been properly realized. Of course that's partly Sony's own fault, but there has been much less interest than I expected even in the possibilities that were available. I thought the Cell offered a really interesting architecture and expected a surge of black-box applications. Oh well.

by ks 17y ago

TheBranca18 17y ago

Well in all fairness, you have the option not to upgrade to 3.21 if it really means that much to you. I think a lot of this is blowing in the wind. I'm sure most people don't even know that you can install Linux on the PS3. Plus the RAM limitation (256 mb) along with not having real access to the RSX makes me go eh. I agree that companies shouldn't promise one thing and then two years later do something completely differently.

sandbagger 17y ago
No, you DON'T have a choice; if you still want to play online/purchase games from the playstation store/play any new game published after this firmware release/use the chat functionality of the machine. Where is the "fairness"? I purchased the machine specifically because of the multi-function aspect, including being able to run Linux on it. I purchased the games I wished to play, both from the playstation store and retail. It was only 6 months ago that this was posted: "On Fri, 2009-08-21 at 09:58 -0700, geoffrey.levand at am.sony.com wrote: The feature of “Install Other OS” was removed from the new “Slim” PS3 model to focus on delivering games and other entertainment content. Please be assured that SCE is committed to continue the support for previously sold models that have the “Install Other OS” feature and that this feature will not be disabled in future firmware releases." Lying bastard japanese pricks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Zak 17y ago

I understand Sony is driven by profit, though I don't understand how disabling the option to install another OS makes them any more money.

TheBranca18 17y ago
It's a reactionary move precipitated by the hacking done by that geohat guy. A lot of gaming companies think that by making a console pirate proof (which the PS3 has been so far) saves them money in the long run. Look at the whole Ubisoft Assassin's Creed 2 mess. In Sony's case I think they partly blame the PSP's problems on piracy and don't want it to happen to the PS3.
- gizmomagico 17y ago
  A lot of gaming companies think that by making a console pirate proof (which the PS3 has been so far) saves them money in the long run. Surely it's a big boost to game sales when people have no other option than to buy.
  - TheBranca18 17y ago
    Yeah I agree, I'm just saying that sometimes companies make the DRM so restrictive to prevent people from buying that they can anger people. That Assassin's Creed 2 PC mess is a good example of bad DRM.
- chrischen 17y ago
  There's a difference between what they are doing now and the Ubisoft Mess. With Assassin's Creed they exerted effort to enforce DRM, with the PS3 they are just not making it easier for you to break DRM.
anigbrowl 17y ago
I wonder if they can somehow be persuaded to compromise - all future firmware updates limit the owner to running Sony's OS, but if you're prepared to forego the consumer goodies, they'll lift the hypervisor restrictions. As a matter of act, with little or no marketing or other overheads, they could offer an open PS3 for a bit more than the consumer version (say $400), on the understanding that when you purchase it, you are not entitled to support for anything except physical hardware failure. I'm really sad that PS3's potential as a general computing platform have not been properly realized. Of course that's partly Sony's own fault, but there has been much less interest than I expected even in the possibilities that were available. I thought the Cell offered a really interesting architecture and expected a surge of black-box applications. Oh well.