This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Fat PS3 Other OS class action lawsuit....

  • Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. PlayStation 3
  3. Fat PS3 Other OS class action lawsuit....

User Info: rafamaximo

rafamaximo
4 months ago#21
Gaara_fan posted...
There still people who believe Sony removed Linux functionality to prevent hackers? LOL.

Sony did it because it served no purpose for them other than get companies like IBM be mad at them for selling blu-ray systems with Linux OS capability for way lower the market price for similar setups back them.

*Hint: IBM worked together with Sony to develop the Cell CPU.

I work for IBM. Cell is IBM work indeed, but it's not like they were "mad" because of PS3 Linux capabilities. PS3 hardware would not handle Linux very well, as far as I know.
Here's how I feel about 90% of topics and posts seem in Gamefaqs:
https://youtu.be/mHWXDaQPau0

User Info: Gunzleader

Gunzleader
4 months ago#22
this other os crap was years ago let it go for bleep sake.
you are not "official" anything of any board grow up. RIP Everquest Online Adventures 2003-2012

User Info: Gaara_fan

Gaara_fan
4 months ago#23
rafamaximo posted...
Gaara_fan posted...
There still people who believe Sony removed Linux functionality to prevent hackers? LOL.

Sony did it because it served no purpose for them other than get companies like IBM be mad at them for selling blu-ray systems with Linux OS capability for way lower the market price for similar setups back them.

*Hint: IBM worked together with Sony to develop the Cell CPU.

I work for IBM. Cell is IBM work indeed, but it's not like they were "mad" because of PS3 Linux capabilities. PS3 hardware would not handle Linux very well, as far as I know.

It seems (Nothing confirmed) IBM were complaining back then (In 2006/2007) that Sony was selling their cell cpu inside the ps3 for much less it would cost for IBM itself to sell computers with the Cell technology, so it was hurting their sales and the talk was IBM asked, "nicely", for Sony to remove Linux support to even out the playing field. And since they're both partners back then, I believe Sony complied.

It's all rumours though, hard to find anything concrete outta this.
"Prepare to be purified. Divine Assault, Ether Strike!" - Freya, Valkyrie Profile 2
https://psnprofiles.com/Otonio_Bruno

User Info: rafamaximo

rafamaximo
4 months ago#24
Gaara_fan posted...
rafamaximo posted...
Gaara_fan posted...
There still people who believe Sony removed Linux functionality to prevent hackers? LOL.

Sony did it because it served no purpose for them other than get companies like IBM be mad at them for selling blu-ray systems with Linux OS capability for way lower the market price for similar setups back them.

*Hint: IBM worked together with Sony to develop the Cell CPU.

I work for IBM. Cell is IBM work indeed, but it's not like they were "mad" because of PS3 Linux capabilities. PS3 hardware would not handle Linux very well, as far as I know.

It seems (Nothing confirmed) IBM were complaining back then (In 2006/2007) that Sony was selling their cell cpu inside the ps3 for much less it would cost for IBM itself to sell computers with the Cell technology, so it was hurting their sales and the talk was IBM asked, "nicely", for Sony to remove Linux support to even out the playing field. And since they're both partners back then, I believe Sony complied.

It's all rumours though, hard to find anything concrete outta this.


No, I can confirm that didn't happen at all. Even though it's a Cell, it's pretty different from what IBM had to offer at that time. There were news about major IT projects who bought a bunch of PS3s to install Linux and then cluster them together (I remember one project in Rome and another one in US Air Force), but even though hardware costs would be lower, in the long run overall costs would be much higher. Cooling and electricity costs have to be taken into consideration, people to support this would also need specific training since PS3 hardware is very different from a usual server. To make things worse, a structure based in PS3 Linux would not be easy to maintain, since there would be no support from Sony nor spare parts available.

I would believe that Sony removed Linux from PS3 because let's say several companies started to use PS3 running Linux for other purposes than gaming... Sony was losing money with each PS3 sold back then, so they had to get this money back by PSN purchases, accessories/peripherals and games sales, etc.

I'll try to make a research about those projects using PS3, it's kind of hard to follow on "corporate IT news" because they always announce a "groudbreaking, innovative" IT project when it starts, but they never announce when that very same project fails hard a few months later.
Here's how I feel about 90% of topics and posts seem in Gamefaqs:
https://youtu.be/mHWXDaQPau0

User Info: ThrillKillFan

ThrillKillFan
4 months ago#25
Pengu1n posted...
Sony lost $240 on every $599 PS3 console and over $300 on the $499 console (it was costing them $840 to manufacture one console). And why would sony remove the blu-ray drive from the PS3? Last i checked all PS3 games are on blu ray disc. DVD drives can't read blu ray discs. To remove it would mean people would have to rebuy all their games on DVD if they had to replace their broken console or upgrade to a newer model that didn't have a blu ray drive.

@Pengu1n

Again though it's not my problem if a company is losing money by selling me a product. Maybe they should release a device with specs that won't have them losing so much money.

Either way they could've always gone with just a DVD drive like Microsoft did as opposed to using the $120+ Blu-Ray drive in the PS3. But again without using the PS3 as a Trojan Horse to get Blu-Ray into people's homes they wouldn't have 'won' the 'format war' that many consumers could care less about in the first place. I know I certainly was not clamoring for a new media format for my movies and games.
Internet forum logic: When my opinion agrees with yours we're good. When it doesn't, the one with the different opinion is 'whining'. Gotta love the internet!

User Info: revengine

revengine
4 months ago#26
If Sony hadn't used BD in the PS3, BD players wouldn't be as cheap as they are now and you'd have game titles with 2+ discs per game. Remember the joke why MGS4 would never appear on the 360? Because of how many DVD discs it would require? Imagine that for most PS3 games, especially the exclusives.
Having a level of standards is going to open you up to criticism of hypocrisy from people with no standards.

User Info: ThrillKillFan

ThrillKillFan
4 months ago#27
revengine posted...
If Sony hadn't used BD in the PS3, BD players wouldn't be as cheap as they are now and you'd have game titles with 2+ discs per game. Remember the joke why MGS4 would never appear on the 360? Because of how many DVD discs it would require? Imagine that for most PS3 games, especially the exclusives.

@revengine

Yet using Blu-Ray in the PS3 increased the cost to Sony by $125. Very few people I knew cared about any media format past DVD. I don't even care to this day. I mean, I'll buy a Blu-Ray version of a movie if it's as cheap as the DVD version. But most times I buy my movies pre-owned from thrifts and for no more than $3-5. I NEVER pay retail for anything if I absolutely can help it.

I have no problem getting up to switch discs to play multi disc games and I even think that modern gaming has become more about how pretty they can make the games look while they're mostly shallow as hell.

Now the push is to try and shove digital distribution down our throats. That's where I draw the line as I refuse to move to a medium where I don't 'own' my media. The ONLY way I would consider digital is if pricing was much, MUCH cheaper. I'm talking like $10-15 MAX for a "AAA" game, $5 for a digital version of a movie. NO way am I paying $60 for a digital game and $20-25 for a digital movie.
Internet forum logic: When my opinion agrees with yours we're good. When it doesn't, the one with the different opinion is 'whining'. Gotta love the internet!

User Info: revengine

revengine
4 months ago#28
@ThrillKillFan You don't care about BD yet you don't want digital. Seems like you're stuck. Don't know why you're worried about Sony taking a hit with the PS3 using BD - I'm pretty sure they recovered most of that back with game sales (especially those digital psn titles that required no BD or packaging at all).
Having a level of standards is going to open you up to criticism of hypocrisy from people with no standards.

User Info: ThrillKillFan

ThrillKillFan
4 months ago#29
revengine posted...
You don't care about BD yet you don't want digital. Seems like you're stuck. Don't know why you're worried about Sony taking a hit with the PS3 using BD - I'm pretty sure they recovered most of that back with game sales (especially those digital psn titles that required no BD or packaging at all).

@revengine

I'm a frugal media buyer. To me a game console is a $200-250 MAX purchase. That's why the PS3 (and PS2 before it) were nauseating purchases for me.

Besides which I can find deals on games for way WAY cheaper than retail most times if I just look around BEFORE buying.

Sadly modern gamers seem content to bend over and take it without lube from these companies. It's why pay to play online is a thing across all modern consoles yet still free on PC, since PC gamers would n't stand for that sort of s***.

If gaming goes all digital or anywhere near close to where I can't find what I consider good deals then I'm done. I'll go back to reading physical books and watching the movies I do have on DVD's and Blu-Rays and quit gaming altogether.
Internet forum logic: When my opinion agrees with yours we're good. When it doesn't, the one with the different opinion is 'whining'. Gotta love the internet!

User Info: revengine

revengine
4 months ago#30
@ThrillKillFan I agree with you for the most part (although I did pre-order my launch day 60 gig PS3 - got caught up in the hype I guess). I think an all DD console is inevitably and is pretty close - if it's not the PS5 it'll be the PS6 for sure. The age of iTunes and Netflix has made sure of that. And to be honest, can you really blame the console makers? It's win-win for them.

Just imagine the costs involved in packaging a game - paying for materials, artists to design covers, factories (with paid employees and machinery) to press the game discs, legal fees for format use etc., shipping costs, it goes on and on. DD they have the game code sitting on a server so they pay for bandwidth, server upkeep and their devs. As a frugal guy, you can understand the benefits of DD I'm sure. But I'm with you, if I pay for a game (or pretty much anything for that matter), I want to be able to hold it in my hand and say "This is mine, I bought it."

Online capable consoles have been a mixed blessing. You get the experience of playing multiplayer with people from around the globe and access to new content to keep a good gaming experience fresh, but then it has also made devs lazy and greedy so you get half finished games that require multiple patches just to get it working properly and paid for DLC just to get what should have been included in the original purchase as it's part of the complete story.
Having a level of standards is going to open you up to criticism of hypocrisy from people with no standards.
  1. Boards
  2. PlayStation 3
  3. Fat PS3 Other OS class action lawsuit....

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

  • Topic Archived