Same thoughts here :DQuote:
Originally Posted by ANDEEZY
And we need a like button or something
Same thoughts here :DQuote:
Originally Posted by ANDEEZY
And we need a like button or something
Don't mislead people here. Even buying the game you can't play it online on 3.55. Buy another console is what you should be saying.:facepalm:Quote:
Originally Posted by dagrimmreepa
I would agree with you except for the fact that i recently have bought Gran Turismo 5, Oblivion GOTY Edition and Fifa 11, i have no pirated games on my system, i have BlackBox FTP, Snes9x and the Genesis Emulator but i cant go online (i only really want to for GT5 though).Quote:
Originally Posted by dagrimmreepa
It is now getting to the point where im thinking if its worthwile keeping the hacked PS3 or whether to just wipe it back to 3.55 Official and upgrade to play GT5 online.
I personally think even if Sony have a rootkit in 3.56 and they can remote access what you have on your PS3 they should only ban those with Backup Managers installed. Its £45 for a game new, by the time the disc gets too scratched (which by the way should only happen if the disc is abused/not stored correctly) the games are down to around £10 on Amazon anyway!
That said, a Sony based run from Hard Drive feature would stop a lot of people needing the backup manager in the first place (like the xbox has).
If anything the lack of PSN for me has backfired the usefulness of hack for me as i have also bought a new Xbox 360 for online gaming, i know it sounds stupid really but SkyPlayer swung that decision rather than any particular Xbox game.
Actually On Topic, i think this is at least a step in the right direction insofar as it shows that it will not always be the rich and powerful corporation that can bully people, however GeoHot still needs to be on the ball about what is going on as they are well and truly after his blood!
The rest of the devs i hope have now taken note of quite how vicious Sony's lawyers can be in their interpretation of the law and be a bit more wary about the future rather than treating this as a free pass to release all sorts of new things as quickly as they can before Sony come after them again.
Plus this is only really a delaying procedure, it is in no way stating the hackers have won anything!
"discovery" is the collection of evidence (or rather, anything that might reasonably lead to admissible evidence) by agreement between one side and other parties (that may or may not be involved in the case).
"expedited discovery" takes the "agreement" out of that, instead issuing subpoenas to other parties, forcing them (ISPs, for example) to give information.
For those that were wondering.
Edit: Hah, is this really my first post? Gah, I'm such a leech.
Thanks, exactly what I wanted to know! :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by madcatz1999
Didn't even have time to post the question.
Great news indeed, one step in the good direction.
And........the battle continues! A bit of good news anyhow! This is gonna be very interesting indeed to follow. :)
let's hope thursday brings equally good news, as this is splendid news. ok so nothing has been won yet but it is definately 1 up for the devs and 1 in the face for sony and there bullying tactics
doesn't seem to be that good of a news
Groklaw - Judge Denies Sony's (SCEA) Motion to Shorten Time
guess we have to wait and seeQuote:
The most obvious possibility then, I think, is that she feels SCEA doesn't need the expedited discovery, because she's inclined to rule for them without it. If you recall, SCEA stated it thought it had enough substance to win the jurisdictional issue already, and she may agree. After all, if she thought she was now inclining toward denying Hotz's motion anyhow and make him stay in California, why bother with expedited discovery? If she thought it possible she'd decide the other way, though, that the case *doesn't* belong in her court after all, if that was really up in the air, I think she'd be more inclined to grant SCEA's motion.
One final possibility is that Hotz's filings have so convinced her that she made an error that she figures there is never going to be a need for any kind of discovery in California, since she's going to dismiss for reasons none of the subpoenas can alter. I think that is the least likely.
Again, though, this is all just guesswork on my part, and you can always be wrong when you are guessing. This makes logical sense to me. People aren't always logical, though, as you may have observed, and so we'll have to wait and see what happens at the hearing.