Sony sued over "don't sue us" Terms of Service

[Southern Patriot]

They should have just said any PS3 purchased after the TOS change is subject to the new TOS, anything before keeps the old TOS.

Yeah, but that's just not the Sony way, especially when it comes to the PS3. They have already established a pattern here of screwing over their buyers by repeatedly changing their TOS, removing features, etc.

[Shadrack]

Um, seriously? If that was the case, scores of Terms of Service agreements in the universe would be "illegal" because company xxx "hid" something way down in them. Not like sony is the first/last to do this... What do people expect, the first line of the ToS to show the new clauses? Don't think this lawsuit is going anywhere.

Maybe companies should be required to have a what's changed or new section at the beginning of any legal jibberjabba I have to agree to before playing my video games.

But, I agree with you. This lawsuit isn't going anywhere.

[Southern Patriot]

You can also update software and blu-rays w/o logging into PSN.

Updating game software (at least when I had a PS3) required logging in to PSN, has that changed? And most newer games require you to update the firmware of the PS3 in order to play them. To update the firmware, you have to accept the new TOS. So you are forced to continually accept new versions of the TOS in order to play newer games.

[MightyJordan]

They should have just said any PS3 purchased after the TOS change is subject to the new TOS, anything before keeps the old TOS.

No one else does that though. When I updated my 360 to the new Metro dashboard, I had to agree to the new terms and conditions (which BTW it said was last updated a few months before the actual update) before I was allowed to use Xbox Live again.

It's just a sad fact of life; a lot of companies won't allow you to use their products unless you agree to their terms and conditions. Another example: iTunes pops up terms and conditions the first time you start it up, and you've got to agree to those, otherwise you can't use it.

[Stealthy_Singh]

It isn't even about how it was available. It is about the clause written in it. There is no fairness for the consumer if they have no means to protect themselves from a company due to , " if you use this, even if it is our fault, it isn't our fault."

I'm not saying the clause is fair or correct. I was just arguing the fact that saying they tried to hide the clause is not too large a stech of the imagination. I don't agree with the clause plain and simple but it wasn't what I was dealing with in my post replying to the quoted post.