Playstation Mobile Games BLOCKED

[Slacker]

No, you can't sue Sony. They are not blocking you from playing games that you've bought with your hard earned cash. They're just forcing you to make the decision between having the ability to play your purchased game (or free psm games) or having the ability to play pirated games.

In legal terms, updating is a choice; it is not a requirement. So if Sony is FORCING you to make a certain choice, but not allowing you to use your rightfully-owned products if you don't do what they want you to do, then I'm sure that's a violation.

Whose terms? Like what silkyskeeter said, it's sony's term and condition you have agreed to. The Sony vita system is a closed system fully owned by them so they can do what they want as long as they abide by the terms and conditions you've agreed to. I havn't read their terms and conditions but I can bet my *** they've covered themselves well regarding firmware updates, etc. Your american hoo ha talk about choice and rights to ownership is no match for sony's legal team.

Advertising

[S1NFUL]

No, you can't sue Sony. They are not blocking you from playing games that you've bought with your hard earned cash. They're just forcing you to make the decision between having the ability to play your purchased game (or free psm games) or having the ability to play pirated games.

In legal terms, updating is a choice; it is not a requirement. So if Sony is FORCING you to make a certain choice, but not allowing you to use your rightfully-owned products if you don't do what they want you to do, then I'm sure that's a violation.

Whose terms? Like what silkyskeeter said, it's sony's term and condition you have agreed to. The Sony vita system is a closed system fully owned by them so they can do what they want as long as they abide by the terms and conditions you've agreed to. I havn't read their terms and conditions but I can bet my *** they've covered themselves well regarding firmware updates, etc. Your american hoo ha talk about choice and rights to ownership is no match for sony's legal team.

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.

Advertising

[Slacker]

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.

bro? stop getting offended so easily, it's only a forum. And you still don't get it and keep going on about violation. They're not doing anything illegal or unethical. If you don't like their terms and conditions, then don't buy into their system. Simple as that. Like their system but don't like their terms and conditions? well there's the hacking and hombrew scene for you.

[S1NFUL]

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.

bro? stop getting offended so easily, it's only a forum. And you still don't get it and keep going on about violation. They're not doing anything illegal or unethical. If you don't like their terms and conditions, then don't buy into their system. Simple as that. Like their system but don't like their terms and conditions? well there's the hacking and hombrew scene for you.

I wasn't offended, and if you thought I was, well then I'm sorry that you were unable to see what I was trying to say.

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?

[silkyskeeter]

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.

[S1NFUL]

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).

-----

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.

[silkyskeeter]

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).


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.

I whole heartedly agree, their business practices are pretty immoral. Heck, in my opinion as I learn more and more about the business practices of game development and software management in college, I think the WHOLE industry is messed up (seriously thinking of changing majors the more and more I learn). And with all the bad rumors Im hearing about the next gen consoles, I no longer feel ill-will towards "so called" pirates not paying to gain access to games and I am seriously thinking of not even bothering with the next gen and just pirate til Im old and gray. Because, if you think about it, almost every developer of hardware (units) and software (games) are severely ripping us off anyway (exempting indie developers). Because I seriously dont like how ALOT of the terms and conditions are worded. You would be surprised how much they could get away with under the current terms and conditions (even tho they havent enacted alot of it, its still kinda scary how much we blindly agree to when we purchase hardware and software).

It is messed up and the worst part is its only effecting PSM right now but it could essentially be common practice of every app that is made or has been made for the PsVita. And, as Wololo expressed earlier this year, we dont know when or if Sony will enact a forced updating system (which they technically could do under the terms and conditions. Similar to how some websites force you to update your Flash to view their pages). Which they seemed to have already did, in a way, thru PSM purchases. Its gonna be a sad day, when or if I take my Vita out of sleep mode up and see that it automatically updated my Vita while I was sleeping (similar to how it tells you that the PSN and Video apps have been updated). Or, I take it out of sleep mode and swipe to get to the home screen just to be greeted with the update pop up and cant gain access to the my own home screen without updating. A scary thought indeed. Im actually kinda scaring myself. Tempted to put my Vita into flight mode and only cut the wifi on when I want to use the YouTube app.

But, technically, the Vita has had the blocking out feature since launch. I didnt realize it because I had wifi up and ready to go when I bought my Vita at launch. But if you buy a Vita and a game but dont have access to the internet, you cant play the game you just bought. THAT I think is really messed up. Not everyone has wifi. No other system, besides PsVita and Im guess Ps3 (only speculation, because I have never owned a Ps3), has REQUIRED you to have an online acct to play an offline game. Really dont like the direction the gaming industry has went and seems to be going...

[S1NFUL]

...their business practices are pretty immoral...It is messed up and the worst part is its only effecting PSM right now but it could essentially be common practice of every app that is made or has been made for the PsVita.

Spot on. THAT is the grander meaning of this whole discussion.