I had the game since day one, and played the game on both an original fatty (60 gig) and a slim. Never froze on me once. Granted, their are some side missions that I need to beat, but the main campaign is done, and the quote states that the bug occurred early in the game. Is there some particular model of PS3 that is affected, or only a particular spot under certain conditions? I'm to lazy to look the answer up, but If so, I'd imagine that would be the type of thing include in a report. Also, what model over heats? Neither of my PS3's did. I'm wondering if they (the consumer) didn’t allow proper ventilation. But the PS3 is notorious for being sued by problems in small numbers. It seems that with every new update, peoples consoles are bricked. I wonder if Sony implements some sort of experimental update upon some users, or if the failure of there PS3's just happened because it was their time. But what confuses me, is that they said the plaintiffs PS3 was broken because of the game, yet he was able to continue to try and play it 2 more times. I guess it is possible that after the 3rd try he was messed up, but it doesn’t state weather or not he could reboot his PS3 after unplugging it. I'm guessing no, because of this lawsuit, but I've never heard of such a thing. Even when GTA 4 messed up my hard drive (I'm the only one I know of who had this problem) I was able to start up my PS3, but I got hit with error codes that were not even known on the internet, couldn’t play any games on disk, only able to play a few downloaded games, couldn’t hit the PS button without freezing, and couldn’t back-up anything to restore (lucky, I was able to copy un-protected saves, and combined that with my old back up, I didn’t lose all my save data and games). Even after all that, I wasn't seeking to sue, nor did the thought cross my mind. I just reformatted my drive, restored what I could, and got on with my life. However, I don't know his problem, it can be inferred that his PS3 won't turn on and the disk stuck, but it is not stated. I hoped this man backs up his PS3 and was able to start it back up.
Perhaps this problem is bigger then I think (you know, multiple people on youtube could be a huge number in the thousands, or could be smaller like 3 more people; said number is also not stated). I remember when the game came out, people were complaining on forums about freezes, but I saw nothing about system crashes and permanent disability of the users PS3. Did it just take a long time to gather enough support for the lawsuit, or did the freezeing/crahsing problem simply get worse with time? I will agree with one company blaming another. I hate it when two companies do that, cause most the time (in my experience), it is the fault of both in one way or another. It is a successful ploy however, as the big companies know that the lone average consumer can do nothing to very little against each of their words. And as much as I disagree with the lawsuit as of now, I disagree with this business practice more, because even if the company is at fault, it proves they are to lazy to fix a problem and care little for the games and systems they have already created for their fans, although it is possible neither business does know the root of the problem. But instead of placing blame, to me, they could each try to help consumers, and maybe even solve the problem, even if it is the other companies fault. So in a certain way, I am glad the little man got enough support to tackle the giants. I want to hear Sony's and Square's response also (other then, its square’s fault, or it's sony's fault). I'm actually still waiting to hear sony's remarks on the lawsuit over the removal of Linux. But what ever, good luck to what ever party is in the right. And if your thinking "whoa, this guy is to lazy to look up the where the bug occurs, but can write this butt load of text", it is because details like where the bug occurs should not have to be looked up upon reading an article. If the writer of an article leaves it out, it is plausible that the plaintiffs don't have concrete proof of where the bug occurs (or under what conditions, etc.), or the writer of the article was not thinking this information was valid, which to support the plaintiff, it would be. So in the writer's fault scenario, withholding the reader of information, the writer stayed neutral. Smooth.
Possibly a lot of errors with my thinking, I haven’t gone back through to read or clearly explain my ideas if need be, or to alter my grammar, but I wish (if anybody reads this) that they can infer what I implied. Good night, hope this comment makes it. |
Find us on Google+
