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.
I wasn't offended, and if you thought I was, well then I'm sorry that you were incapable of interpreting someone's words in a correct manner.
Anyway, I was just trying to make a point. And, did I say that Sony was doing "anything illegal"? Definitely not; you paraphrased me incorrectly. I said, and I'm quoting myself here, "in legal terms, updating is a choice; it is not a requirement...Sony is FORCING you to make a certain choice..." I'll reinstate that updating is in fact your choice (meaning you're not legally obliged to update your console -- if you were, then a LOT of people would be in jail right now). However, what Sony's doing here is that despite a loyal consumer like me having bought their product, they're still restricting me from using some of its features because I made a CHOICE not to update. So, yes I'll say it again, it is still a violation, even if in the least terms.
Also, I never said that I dislike their terms and conditions. If I didn't, I wouldn't be using any Sony products, like you "advised" me to do so.
Oh, just one more thing. You do realize that the whole "suing" thing was all a joke right? I think you took it too seriously. It's only a forum, right?
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.