Last week, a class action lawsuit was filed against Sony after March firmware update removed the "Other OS" functionality from the console.
IGN took a deeper look into just what the lawsuit entails and what exactly it will mean for the average consumer. Here is what Rebecca Coll, the attorney from the firm Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz P.C. who filed the suit against Sony, has to say about the matter at present.
As noted, one of the claims by the legal team is that consumers paid "much more" than what they might have paid if the Other OS feature was never part of the feature list. The problem with this sort of thinking though, is that the price of the hardware is the largest factor when it comes to the price of consoles. A removal or addition of a software feature typically has little to no impact on price.
Do you think their assessment is fair? Do you believe that people paid more simply because of a software feature?
IGN took a deeper look into just what the lawsuit entails and what exactly it will mean for the average consumer. Here is what Rebecca Coll, the attorney from the firm Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz P.C. who filed the suit against Sony, has to say about the matter at present.
"Right now, our proposed 'class definition' includes everybody in the country who bought the PS3 from the time of launch until March 27, 2010."
"This class definition reflects, in part, that Sony commanded a much higher price for the gaming console based on the functionality of the 'Other OS' feature at the time of its launch and trumpeted the 'Other OS' feature in its subsequent marketing," she explained. "As a result, consumers paid much more for a product than they should otherwise have been charged now that Sony has disabled the 'Other OS' feature."
"If the court adopts this definition, then everyone fitting within that definition would automatically be included in the class action, unless they choose to 'opt out,'" she added.
Coll explained that notifications of the class action will then be sent to PS3 owners through various ways.
"Once the court defines the class, the court will order that the 'class' receive notice of the action," she said. "Notice methods vary. Sometimes notice is by publication in newspapers, by mail, by email, through internet postings, or any combination of those" she said. "The notice will advise class members how long they have to 'opt out' of the class. Sometimes, if there is a settlement at or before the time the class is certified, this 'class notice' also lets people know how they can file a claim, and tells people the deadline to file their claims."
"This class definition reflects, in part, that Sony commanded a much higher price for the gaming console based on the functionality of the 'Other OS' feature at the time of its launch and trumpeted the 'Other OS' feature in its subsequent marketing," she explained. "As a result, consumers paid much more for a product than they should otherwise have been charged now that Sony has disabled the 'Other OS' feature."
"If the court adopts this definition, then everyone fitting within that definition would automatically be included in the class action, unless they choose to 'opt out,'" she added.
Coll explained that notifications of the class action will then be sent to PS3 owners through various ways.
"Once the court defines the class, the court will order that the 'class' receive notice of the action," she said. "Notice methods vary. Sometimes notice is by publication in newspapers, by mail, by email, through internet postings, or any combination of those" she said. "The notice will advise class members how long they have to 'opt out' of the class. Sometimes, if there is a settlement at or before the time the class is certified, this 'class notice' also lets people know how they can file a claim, and tells people the deadline to file their claims."
As noted, one of the claims by the legal team is that consumers paid "much more" than what they might have paid if the Other OS feature was never part of the feature list. The problem with this sort of thinking though, is that the price of the hardware is the largest factor when it comes to the price of consoles. A removal or addition of a software feature typically has little to no impact on price.
Do you think their assessment is fair? Do you believe that people paid more simply because of a software feature?