Even in a case like this where it is introduced after the fact? ie. the customers have already paid hundreds of dollars for their PS3 and games etc, and are later told they have to give up more rights if they want to keep using it. That seems worse to me than just the presence of this clause.
This is a very bothersome arrangement that is popping up all over: changing the contract after it's signed. Consider mobile phones, for instance: You have entered a two-year agreement with AT&T because of the iPhone. Then Apple changes its terms-of-service. Suppose you don't agree? You can stop using the phone, but you are still bound to your AT&T contract.
At least in the US, if they change the agreement, you get a get-out-of-contract free opportunity, where you can cancel without paying the early termination fee if you refuse to accept the agreement changes.
dhimes was talking about a situation wherein there are two related, yet separate, contracts at play.
You are contractually obligated to both Apple and AT&T, so even if you use this loophole to get out of your contract with Apple when they change the contract, your obligation to AT&T continues. IANAL, but my assumption would be that a change in the Apple contract in no way legally changes your AT&T contract, so you are still liable to either honour your obligation to AT&T or pay their (typically exorbitant) cancellation fee.
Indeed. It would be nice if the two contracts were bound: then at least Apple would have to vet their changes with AT&T, which would presumably react against changes that pissed off the users but whose functions acted in only Apple's best interest.
And note, I don't mean to pick on Apple. I just chose them as a concrete example. It could easily be the other way around or two different companies.
Your hundreds of dollars for a PS3 gets you the right to the PS3 and the right to play games on it, which is completely possible without PSN. This is fact. PSN is a separate free service not under the same terms under which you purchased your PS3.
Your spin isn't helping anyone and detracting from the actual issue at hand, which is whether SONY has a right to take your right to sue over security for a free online service.
Downvoter: Please explain why you disagree? Or have I mis-stated something as fact?
I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. Many games will not allow you to play (at all, even "offline") if updates (to the game, not the console's firmware) are available. I think Civ:Rev will only force you to update if you want to play "online", but I'm pretty sure Little Big Planet won't even load if updates to the game are available.
Other games require you to be online to simply install.
Some newer Blu-Ray discs require updates to the PS3's firmware. You cannot update the firmware without accepting the EULA.
You lose enormous functionality by not accepting the EULA.
With every one of these insane EULA updates, I'm thinking more and more about using one of the custom firmwares.
One thing is for certain - their anti-consumer stance ensures I won't ever buy another Sony product!
> I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. Many games will not allow you to play (at all, even "offline") if updates (to the game, not the console's firmware) are available. I think Civ:Rev will only force you to update if you want to play "online", but I'm pretty sure Little Big Planet won't even load if updates to the game are available.
No that is not true. I downloaded little big planet and for a month I didn't have internet and was able to play without having updated it. If the game requires an update it's not mandatory. It only makes you update if you go online but you don't have to do that.
Problem is lots of people who don't have a PS3 and don't know the facts keep propogating anti-sony spin simply because they don't like certain practices of Sony the conglomerate. But it does no one a favor to keep up ad-hominem attacks on Sony.
I didn't downvote, but if Sony uses PSN as a selling point for PS3, it's pretty disingenuous to later claim that the ability to use PSN is unrelated to the purchase of a PS3.
Perhaps, but at the same time it's a free service and they aren't obligated to perpetually provide the exact same service to you for the initial $2xx you paid.
