surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
Has anyone actually confirmed if this just opts out of the clause, or out of your agreement to the ToS in total. e.g. are they just going to close your account when you send in this form?
Ok... PSN account number. That's the part I'm confused about. Do they mean your account NAME? Because I've never seen a number associated with my PSN account before.
It is very sad that in this day and age of computers and the Internet taking over eery aspect of our lives and yet I have to mail a snail-mail letter to Sony so that I can get the right to sue them.
This is all just too strange, I'm gonna go sit down now.
This is all just too strange, I'm gonna go sit down now.
Meh. Most people never read what they are agreeing with, and I think most courts will null those TOS because of it. To me the most powerful tool a consumer have is money. DO NOT SPEND MONEY WITH COMPANIES THAT DO THINGS YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH!
The worst thing consumers do is to complain a lot but keep buying products and services from companies they do not agree with. It goes like 'I hate Sony, but I will be first in line for Uncharted 3 and play my ass on-line, despite the horrible TOS they have'.
Companies only change their way if they lose money. Complaining a lot in the internet not make them lose money. Not buying their products make them lose money.
The worst thing consumers do is to complain a lot but keep buying products and services from companies they do not agree with. It goes like 'I hate Sony, but I will be first in line for Uncharted 3 and play my ass on-line, despite the horrible TOS they have'.
Companies only change their way if they lose money. Complaining a lot in the internet not make them lose money. Not buying their products make them lose money.
When I first heard about this elsewhere, I just quit using my PS3, sold the system and games and donated the money to charity. So fuck you Sony. Least I did something good with your shitty hardware.
It's depressing that many people just don't care about this simply because they don't feel it affects them. It doesn't matter if you have no intention of ever trying to exercise the rights they're taking away, they're still giving a giant "fuck you" to all consumers. And they get away with it because of consumer apathy.
But doesn't opting out of the TOS also opt out of using the PSN?
I wouldn't send them a letter, just in case my account got closed.
But then A. i'm in the UK where I don't think this applies and B. I just don't care.
I wouldn't send them a letter, just in case my account got closed.
But then A. i'm in the UK where I don't think this applies and B. I just don't care.
@Sexualchocolate
The letter doesn't opt you out of the TOS. It declares you refusal to act through an arbitrator in the future should you decide to take action. It in effect opts you out of one specific clause of the TOS, allowing you to act as yourself (in this case, engage in a class action lawsuit).
The letter doesn't opt you out of the TOS. It declares you refusal to act through an arbitrator in the future should you decide to take action. It in effect opts you out of one specific clause of the TOS, allowing you to act as yourself (in this case, engage in a class action lawsuit).
If this stops frivolous lawsuits that makes lawyers rich and gets the rest of us a check for $5 after filling out a bunch of paperwork, then why is this being seen as a bad thing? If I have a grievance with Sony they will hear about it from me. I will not be opting out.
Look, Jim Sterling finally figured out what everyone else has known for days. Might want to actually include the part of the ToS that explains this process, Jim. So dipshits like tr0tsky don't get confused.
Section 15:
RIGHT TO OPT OUT OF BINDING ARBITRATION AND CLASS ACTION WAIVER WITHIN 30 DAYS. IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO BE BOUND BY THE BINDING ARBITRATION AND CLASS ACTION WAIVER IN THIS SECTION 15, YOU MUST NOTIFY SNEI IN WRITING WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE THAT YOU ACCEPT THIS AGREEMENT. YOUR WRITTEN NOTIFICATION MUST BE MAILED TO 6080 CENTER DRIVE, 10TH FLOOR, LOS ANGELES, CA 90045, ATTN: LEGAL DEPARTMENT/ARBITRATION AND MUST INCLUDE: (1) YOUR NAME, (2) YOUR ADDRESS, (3) YOUR PSN ACCOUNT NUMBER, IF YOU HAVE ONE, AND (4) A CLEAR STATEMENT THAT YOU DO NOT WISH TO RESOLVE DISPUTES WITH ANY SONY ENTITY THROUGH ARBITRATION.
Section 15:
RIGHT TO OPT OUT OF BINDING ARBITRATION AND CLASS ACTION WAIVER WITHIN 30 DAYS. IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO BE BOUND BY THE BINDING ARBITRATION AND CLASS ACTION WAIVER IN THIS SECTION 15, YOU MUST NOTIFY SNEI IN WRITING WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE THAT YOU ACCEPT THIS AGREEMENT. YOUR WRITTEN NOTIFICATION MUST BE MAILED TO 6080 CENTER DRIVE, 10TH FLOOR, LOS ANGELES, CA 90045, ATTN: LEGAL DEPARTMENT/ARBITRATION AND MUST INCLUDE: (1) YOUR NAME, (2) YOUR ADDRESS, (3) YOUR PSN ACCOUNT NUMBER, IF YOU HAVE ONE, AND (4) A CLEAR STATEMENT THAT YOU DO NOT WISH TO RESOLVE DISPUTES WITH ANY SONY ENTITY THROUGH ARBITRATION.
I guess no one has mentioned that Microsoft has a clause that essentially does the same thing in their terms of service.
It's not exactly apathy. Teh Mad Interweb Gamerz Wit Pitchforks An' Rakes seem keen to sue on a daily basis but I can't exactly remember a single console-related case that would have been valid, constructive, or - most importantly - led to anything.
ManWithNoName summed it up most splendidly: if it's a problem, simply speak with your wallet. That's far more damaging than any silly letter sent somewhere.
ManWithNoName summed it up most splendidly: if it's a problem, simply speak with your wallet. That's far more damaging than any silly letter sent somewhere.
If you want to do this but are lazy giantbomb has a template letter for you. http://www.giantbomb.com/news/sonys-asking-you-to-waive-your-rights-but-you-have-options/3674/ boom.
It's perfectly possible to opt out of this bullshit without suing. Sending the letter is not the same thing as starting up a frivolous case. Regardless of whether or not you care about doing anything to Sony, they're still doing something to you which you shouldn't allow.
gonna rise up, gonna kick some ass, gonna kick some ass in the USA
gonna rise up, gonna kick a little ass, gonna flyyyyy like an eagle
gonna rise up, gonna kick a little ass, gonna flyyyyy like an eagle
No it is not strange at all. This is business as usual.
Ever had to send in a rebate for something you bought? Ever forget to do it because you had to gather all of that stuff up, photocopy the receipt, and remember to buy a postage stamp? In the days of yore this wasn't a big deal because E-Mail, forums, and even USEnet were not prevalent. The extra (although minor) hoop to jump through that you are not used to doing is just a deterrent. The likely know they can't just force it, but if you have to do some extra work, lazy people (most of us) won't bother and they win by default.
It's easier to say "yeah whatever" and agree to the TOS than to sit down and type up a proper letter that says, "No, I don't accept your crappy terms." While I'm not a lawyer, I would bet that if you did try to sue Sony in any capacity, they would break out these letters and try to poke holes in them saying that while this person wrote to us not accepting our TOS, they didn't technically disagree with this little nuanced point here. They have time, money, and more lawyers than most people have underpants. The tactic would be unsurprising.
That said, it would almost be ideal to have a proper lawyer draft a form boilerplate letter that states exactly what Sony needs to be told. I am also curious on the confirmation aspect. It is just as easy for Sony to just say "we didn't get it" unless you send it certified mail and hold onto the confirmation receipt forever. Yeah, you are SO gonna do that...
As far as the whole, "AT&T can do it. We can too." argument I will point out that this isn't the first time that logic has been applied by companies. For example, ATM fees. I remember questioning someone at a bank about the surcharge fees and the response was "Everyone else does it." By extension, this is really what you are seeing. Corporations are people and arbitrarily changing TOS to "improve the customer experience and oh yeah absolve us of any responsibility if we actually screw up" is the norm.
As a total aside, I would rather have seen all of these various articles compiled into a single cohesive lump with the details filled in. When my comment is larger than the article something may be wrong. :D
TL;DR -- Write a goddamned letter to Sony telling them to smeg off. You may never know if they actually received that letter.
Ever had to send in a rebate for something you bought? Ever forget to do it because you had to gather all of that stuff up, photocopy the receipt, and remember to buy a postage stamp? In the days of yore this wasn't a big deal because E-Mail, forums, and even USEnet were not prevalent. The extra (although minor) hoop to jump through that you are not used to doing is just a deterrent. The likely know they can't just force it, but if you have to do some extra work, lazy people (most of us) won't bother and they win by default.
It's easier to say "yeah whatever" and agree to the TOS than to sit down and type up a proper letter that says, "No, I don't accept your crappy terms." While I'm not a lawyer, I would bet that if you did try to sue Sony in any capacity, they would break out these letters and try to poke holes in them saying that while this person wrote to us not accepting our TOS, they didn't technically disagree with this little nuanced point here. They have time, money, and more lawyers than most people have underpants. The tactic would be unsurprising.
That said, it would almost be ideal to have a proper lawyer draft a form boilerplate letter that states exactly what Sony needs to be told. I am also curious on the confirmation aspect. It is just as easy for Sony to just say "we didn't get it" unless you send it certified mail and hold onto the confirmation receipt forever. Yeah, you are SO gonna do that...
As far as the whole, "AT&T can do it. We can too." argument I will point out that this isn't the first time that logic has been applied by companies. For example, ATM fees. I remember questioning someone at a bank about the surcharge fees and the response was "Everyone else does it." By extension, this is really what you are seeing. Corporations are people and arbitrarily changing TOS to "improve the customer experience and oh yeah absolve us of any responsibility if we actually screw up" is the norm.
As a total aside, I would rather have seen all of these various articles compiled into a single cohesive lump with the details filled in. When my comment is larger than the article something may be wrong. :D
TL;DR -- Write a goddamned letter to Sony telling them to smeg off. You may never know if they actually received that letter.
@redeemer: Granted, it's a silly requirement to begin with but should push come to shove, do you really think it would hold any significance? This shitstorm alone probably makes Sony reconsider and even it didn't, what exactly would constitue a proper, non-frivolous class action suit for a mere games console?
This is interesting.
The fact is, unnamed plaintiffs in class action lawsuits often get screwed. They become bound by a settlement they never agreed upon, and instead of being able to get what they deserve, they receive a check for $5. Imagine that you have a legitimate claim for damages, only to find out that you cannot sue because the corporation in question took the offer of the lowest bidding law firm? It has happened before.
The more I read about class action lawsuits, the more I think that being excluded would be a good thing.
The fact is, unnamed plaintiffs in class action lawsuits often get screwed. They become bound by a settlement they never agreed upon, and instead of being able to get what they deserve, they receive a check for $5. Imagine that you have a legitimate claim for damages, only to find out that you cannot sue because the corporation in question took the offer of the lowest bidding law firm? It has happened before.
The more I read about class action lawsuits, the more I think that being excluded would be a good thing.
Is anyone aware the the new tos for only for clasa action lawsuits only! My god did anyone on thd destructoid staff read the whole fucking thing. Hell was in the the first paragraph of the tos. I swear between G4, Ign, gamespot, and this site.... are you all getting paid by Microsoft to spread this bullshit around the net now they are number 3 worldwide? This is completely ridiculous that this topic is not correct addressed
I wonder how many people here, including Jim, have read and tried to understand Steam's, GOG's or Xbox Live's TOS? TOS are intended to give us as little rights as possible and that is just what the lawyers of every single company out there does.
@ dj8004
did you read the first two paragraphs of this very article?
this and pretty much every other one i've read was very specific in pointing out that the TOS change applied only to class action suits. i think you may be the only one that hasn't noticed...
did you read the first two paragraphs of this very article?
this and pretty much every other one i've read was very specific in pointing out that the TOS change applied only to class action suits. i think you may be the only one that hasn't noticed...
@pokota
It's simple to exclude yourself from a class action lawsuit if you don't want to be involved. That's completely unrelated to telling Sony you don't want them messing with your rights as a consumer.
Personal responsibility, people. Lawsuits can be tricky, risky things to engage in. But we should have the rights to decide on our own if we want to go through with it. It's not Sony's place to say "by agreeing to our terms, you aren't allowed to sue us - it's for your protection!".
It's simple to exclude yourself from a class action lawsuit if you don't want to be involved. That's completely unrelated to telling Sony you don't want them messing with your rights as a consumer.
Personal responsibility, people. Lawsuits can be tricky, risky things to engage in. But we should have the rights to decide on our own if we want to go through with it. It's not Sony's place to say "by agreeing to our terms, you aren't allowed to sue us - it's for your protection!".
As much as I love this site, its only purpose is to create hype and sell things for corporations. Video games have replaced television as the true opioid of the masses. It also serves a venting function that helps keep the disenchanted fighting imaginary enemies instead of real ones. Think about how many games made by multinational conglomerates have you bringing down 'evil' corporations. I think writing a letter is a good idea for the simple fact its something most of us wouldn't usually do. The act itself is good practice.
@redeemer
Not if you don't know you're listed as an unnamed plaintiff. I've gotten two checks in lawsuits that I never knew I was a part of.
Not if you don't know you're listed as an unnamed plaintiff. I've gotten two checks in lawsuits that I never knew I was a part of.
@Henriquegds
yeah I know what you mean it feels too much like a gradual thing, stay on your toes my friends
yeah I know what you mean it feels too much like a gradual thing, stay on your toes my friends
@Henriquegds
You're perfectly welcome to be concerned with whatever you want, but frankly I'm growing a bit tired of being told how I should feel about this particular subject.
You're perfectly welcome to be concerned with whatever you want, but frankly I'm growing a bit tired of being told how I should feel about this particular subject.
This requires too much effort on my part. I can't even comprehend what I would ever sue a video game company over.
Steam is different, because Steam is a religion for PC gamers so their TOS is more like commandments.
@nanowerx
It is not strange. Sony doesn't want to make it easy. If they made opting out a checkbox in the TOS, then a lot of people might opt out. If people have to go out of their way, then they won't. The same goes for burying the means to do so inside the TOS, which Sony knows most people don't read.
As Hex65000 said, rebates are handled under a similar principle. The biggest difference being that even if you jump through all the hoops for a mail-in rebate, companies sometimes still won't authorize it, with the full knowledge that most customers won't then go the legal complaint route to get their deserved money.
It is not strange. Sony doesn't want to make it easy. If they made opting out a checkbox in the TOS, then a lot of people might opt out. If people have to go out of their way, then they won't. The same goes for burying the means to do so inside the TOS, which Sony knows most people don't read.
As Hex65000 said, rebates are handled under a similar principle. The biggest difference being that even if you jump through all the hoops for a mail-in rebate, companies sometimes still won't authorize it, with the full knowledge that most customers won't then go the legal complaint route to get their deserved money.
I think tr0tsky wins this round. From the Steam subscriber agreement:
10. EXCLUSIVE REMEDIES
A. EXCLUSIVE REMEDY -- STEAM AND THE SOFTWARE.
YOU ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT YOUR SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR ANY DISPUTE WITH VALVE WITH REGARD TO STEAM OR THE SOFTWARE IS TO DISCONTINUE USE OF STEAM AND CANCEL YOUR ACCOUNT. BECAUSE SOME STATES OR JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OR THE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY FOR CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, IN SUCH STATES OR JURISDICTIONS, VALVE, ITS LICENSORS, AND THEIR AFFILIATES LIABILITY SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW.
10. EXCLUSIVE REMEDIES
A. EXCLUSIVE REMEDY -- STEAM AND THE SOFTWARE.
YOU ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT YOUR SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR ANY DISPUTE WITH VALVE WITH REGARD TO STEAM OR THE SOFTWARE IS TO DISCONTINUE USE OF STEAM AND CANCEL YOUR ACCOUNT. BECAUSE SOME STATES OR JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OR THE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY FOR CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, IN SUCH STATES OR JURISDICTIONS, VALVE, ITS LICENSORS, AND THEIR AFFILIATES LIABILITY SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW.
Sony isn't getting anymore of my dollars because of this. Time to mod my PS3 and go the way of the pirate.
Jim, can we get a comment about Steam's TOS?
YOU ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT YOUR SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR ANY DISPUTE WITH VALVE WITH REGARD TO STEAM OR THE SOFTWARE IS TO DISCONTINUE USE OF STEAM AND CANCEL YOUR ACCOUNT. BECAUSE SOME STATES OR JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OR THE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY FOR CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, IN SUCH STATES OR JURISDICTIONS, VALVE, ITS LICENSORS, AND THEIR AFFILIATES LIABILITY SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW.
YOU ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT YOUR SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR ANY DISPUTE WITH VALVE WITH REGARD TO STEAM OR THE SOFTWARE IS TO DISCONTINUE USE OF STEAM AND CANCEL YOUR ACCOUNT. BECAUSE SOME STATES OR JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OR THE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY FOR CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, IN SUCH STATES OR JURISDICTIONS, VALVE, ITS LICENSORS, AND THEIR AFFILIATES LIABILITY SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW.
@ JT Murphy
steam's whole TOS is diabolical, it's pretty much a waiver to all your consumer rights including the right to use the service at all, ie if valve decides to shut down for a week, month or even forever there is nothing you can do.
unless you live in europe, in which case probably 99% of that stuff is unenforcible. (this is of course because europeans are pussies, nanny state, liberal commies, america don't need no rights, AMERICA FUCK YEAAAAAAHHH!!! etc.)
doesn't mean the sony thing isn't an issue though.
steam's whole TOS is diabolical, it's pretty much a waiver to all your consumer rights including the right to use the service at all, ie if valve decides to shut down for a week, month or even forever there is nothing you can do.
unless you live in europe, in which case probably 99% of that stuff is unenforcible. (this is of course because europeans are pussies, nanny state, liberal commies, america don't need no rights, AMERICA FUCK YEAAAAAAHHH!!! etc.)
doesn't mean the sony thing isn't an issue though.
follow
