Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
tips@gizmodo.com
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | Email | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
Email | AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
Email | AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
Email | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
Email | Twitter
Sean Fallon
Email | Twitter
Jack Loftus
Email | Twitter
John Herrman
Email | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Email
Chris Mascari
Email
Danny Allen
Email | Twitter
Rosa Golijan
Email | Twitter
Chris Jacob
Email
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Email
Kyle VanHemert
Email
Comment Intern:
Nick Ellenoff | Email
Comment Account Questions:
Comments@gizmodo.com
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
#speakup
11/24/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
It would be interesting if Sony expands it to a more Apple iDrive-esque route where you can save GBs of storage space for thing beyond gaming. Maybe allowing you to stream movies, pictures, music via browser you have stored on your online storage space, etc. Or maybe they allow digitally-distributed game rental service.
But whatever these 'premium' services are they better not be at the cost of core services. It would be a mistake to charge for basic online gameplay and delay demos like XBL Gold service does.
They need to add value, not remove value from their core customers...
11/23/09
They're not being very subtle about this, are they?
11/23/09
I'm not sure but is it legal for them to charge for the services they currently provide free? They advertise FREE PSN as a feature when you purchase the product (PS3). If they change the terms while you own the product you should have some sort of recourse to get your money back or be subsequently compensated.
Any lawyers out there?
11/23/09
The article mentions that everything that is free now will stay free.
Xbox also says free live. Fine print however mentions free silver live.
11/23/09
11/23/09
The short answer should be that Sony can change the service to a paid for deal without any problems as they are giving you notice of the change.
Your suggestion creates a few questions which do not seem to have been thought through. For example, what would be fair compensation? How could you determine the fair term of time that should be compensated for? What is the injury if no costs have been charged without the owners permission? What would be a fair compensation for those people who have enjoyed the free service as promised? Also, if you purchased the console and received the promised service for free and it was later changed, could you actually represent that you did not receive the free service?
In my opinion, a service provider should have more leeway to alter the terms of an agreement because the duration of the interaction period is longer (as opposed to buying a product which is a single instant sorta thing). Because more leeway appears due, I would presume that a basic position is that the fair thing would be to allow service providers to alter terms of service as necessary to continue to provide their service... unless the consumer is bound to continue using that service, at which point it would swing the other way.
To truly answer your question it is much more complicated than is appropriate for this forum. It sounds like you are combining a suggestion for a breach of contract with a false advertising claim. To evaluate these claims, it would be necessary to determine all sorts of facts and other matters. Ultimately though it is probably moot because, the agreement might, AND PROBABLY DOES, expressly provide for a change of terms at any time, with notice, making it totally appropriate for them to make such changes. This sort of language would be expected with a service like PSN because operating costs may change and financial situations might affect the parties (the consumer and Sony) in a way that would require an alternate business model.
This is only my opinion and not legal advice, as I am not an attorney, but only a humble law student and not capable of any representations as such.
11/23/09
I'm just thinking of an extreme case where I may purchase a device with free services that a short time later I am then charged for after a TOS revision. I imagine there would have to be some sort of consumer protection from that.
11/26/09
Retroactive charges are unlikely because it would create exactly the situation you are suggesting (and Sony would likely want to avoid that situation), it would create HORRIBLE ill will towards Sony most likely, AND, in my experience, Sony has a very clear way of changing the Terms of Service.
The first assumption I would make is that Sony will adopt a model of payment similar to Xbox Live Gold Accounts. This model has users pay in advance of service for a set rate that provides access to the service for a certain number of months, or, alternatively, pay prior to receiving service each month. It would not be retroactive charges if Sony sends you a bill for the Next months services. There, they are making the presumption that you want to continue service and so are sending you a bill to enable that, however, because they have not provided the services yet, you should be free *not* to engage such services by notifying them you are uninterested (or presumably by not using the services at all). Ultimately, retroactive charges would be the sort of fiasco that Sony should easily side step and is a very unlikely situation.
This is only my opinion and not legal advice, as I am not an attorney, but only a humble law student and not capable of any representations as such.
11/23/09
Do they always have to go fuck up a good thing?
11/23/09
11/23/09
There is absolutly no moderation in some games. I was playing CoD4 at a friend's place (on PSN). First of all half of teh people didn't have mics when they did it was shitty bluetooth with ridiculous amount of noise and static. Clan names that has words such as f** and nigr.
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
Microsoft does it, why can't Sony? I mean sony had the meanest censorship when PS2 online was abrely launched. I remember playing tiwsted metal black and there was no chat feature. however after entering some codes you'd get this basic on screen qwerty sort of chat. You couldn't even say "Hard one".
11/23/09
As far as early demo access and paid goodies for free, they do that already with Qore (Which runs on a subscription BTW so that system has been in place a while for FXIV).
Hopefully this will just be some subscriptions for things like comics, movies and paid themes(I wonder how well those are selling).
11/23/09
11/23/09
Jokes aside, it will be interesting to see how Sony differentiates this.
11/23/09
11/23/09
*goes back to PC*
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
It's still incredibly hard to justify when you can play the same game on a PC without the extra charge...
11/23/09
It is making Microsoft a shit-ton of money though.
#tips
11/23/09
The PowerPC, the UltraSparc, the DEC/Compaq/Whoever "Alpha", are all either going, or near, extinct.
"And one architecture to rule them all, one instruction set to bind them, one design to bring them all, and in the PC bind them..."
11/23/09
It was, at best, a Co-Processor, like the GPUS on ATI and Nvidia cards.
11/23/09
11/23/09
That's a goooood question. With the PS3 supposed 10 year product. They will need the "Cell Processor" for about 6 more years.
11/23/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
Walmart: 2 games, $60 each, plus a BD movie.
You can find LBP for much cheaper than both Batman and inFamous, because those two came out this year whereas LBP is more than a year old. GoW is a $40 package, again you're saving more by going with Walmart.
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
[www.gamesindustry.biz]
11/20/09