Calm your nuts, bro. No one here has serious intentions of suing such a big corporation over not being able to play a $1 game. And anyway, in terms of ethics, business or not, not being allowed to use something you paid for with your hard-earned money is still a violation.
LOL hoo ha talk? I'm sure that's not even a correct English phrase.
Do you seriously live in the real world? Or maybe you are still a kid that knows not of the world, business, and ownership. Profit and ethics dont really go hand and hand. I will give you a few examples of why that makes no sense in our world. First example, you work hard to pay off a house and by all documentation that house is yours. Let you not follow the terms and conditions of owning that house, of paying taxes on that house, for a few years and see if you still own that house, LOL. Thats wrong, but it happens every day to someone in the USA. Second example (and more on the same lines of entertainment deprivation), you pay your hard earned money for a cable service and you opt to purchase the cable box and decide to not pay your cable bill. Under your understanding of the world, you think yourself able to still watch cable because you paid your hard earned money for the cable box even tho you didnt abide by the terms and conditions of that cable company by paying your bill. (tho PSN is technically free, the rules still apply)
THATS how terms and conditions work. Learn to read what you agree to. Sony could change their terms and conditions, tomorrow that says you dont have the rights to any of their intellectual properties if you arent on the current firmware and connected to the internet and there wouldnt be a thing you could do about it except for complain and hope someone hacks the Vita. Because, technically, the ONLY thing you OWN, with your hard earned money, is the unit and chip that the game is actually imprinted on, NOT the game (which is why paying for a digital copy of a game is kind of a rip off if you think about it). The game, you are leasing the rights to use and that lease is as permanent or as temporary as the owners of the intellectual properties deems fit. YOU NEVER OWN IT. Read the terms of service. Doesnt matter if you paid 1$ or 900$, the contractual terms and conditions are absolute.
It's morally wrong, greed filled, and ethically depressing but a violation (the act of breaking or going against a promise or law), it is not. Sadly, its capitalism.... The world we live in. And, in the end, the ability to entertain yourself with games is not a right, its a luxury.
First and foremost, I respect everything you've said so far, and I mostly agree with it all. However, one thing that I'd like to clarify is that when I say "violation," I'm not referring to the legal aspects of the situation. When I say the word "violation," my intentions of its use are not to raise questions about the legality of not being able to "use a license" that you've been entitled to (through renting and accepting its terms and conditions, as you said), but I want to raise the question about the ethics of this situation.
Now, you said, "Profit and ethics dont really go hand and hand." I totally agree with you, but I never stated that they did.
Secondly, as for the "cable box service" situation, I agree with you partly when you say that you're not going to receive any service if you just buy the box but you don't pay the bills for the service being provided with it. It seems logical (and self-explanatory) that you wouldn't and you can't really argue against that, right? On the other hand, I just want to point out that I never stated that consumers should have access to PSN on outdated consoles. In my case, I updated my Vita and left behind eCFW and homebrew in general because I wanted to use PlayStation's online services. What I was
arguing was that we should still be allowed to use our PlayStation Mobile games and applications on outdated firmwares and consoles solely due to the fact that we payed for them (I guess you could say that you paid $0.00 for the free PS Mobile games too) and the fact that we decided not to make a certain decision in the way Sony would want us to shouldn't
(in terms of morals, not legality) give them the right (morals
) to prevent us from using that software (again, I emphasize morals).
silkyskeeter wrote:Actually, saying "in legal terms" is saying just that, that Sony is going against legal practices. Which would make what they are doing ILLEGAL, in your opinion, for which it is not. Just like your use of the word violation. If you are not talking about illegal or legal practices, you really need to use different words then. Because the terminology you are using is of legality but your explaining is of privilege. Privilege and legality are not one in the same. You are contradicting yourself, just saying.
Essentially, Sony is placing it's users (specifically, the ones who want to use their PS Mobile games and apps on outdated firmware) between a rock and a hardplace. They're essentially saying that if you don't do what they want you to do (in this case, update), then they won't allow you to use certain apps and games (which you "rented", as you said). Now, doesn't that seem a little f-ed up?
By the way, the term violation doesn't solely apply to situations where legality is involved. It is used mostly in those situations, but not always.