Video: The Great PS3 Dust Warranty Controversy On Fox News
From over at Homotron: The Great PS3 Dust Warranty Controversy has reached the mainstream media via our favourite "fair and balanced" friends *ahem* Fox News:
I disagree with Carey Greenber-Berger about the results of his poll at The Consumerist, which claims most users agree that Sony should go ahead and repair the unit. They were skewed, in my opinion, by the choices available:
Is This Playstation 3 Too Dusty To Be Repaired Under Warranty?
- Yes: The unit presents a threat to any technician's health.
- No: This dust is not threatening. Sony should repair the unit.
Notice there's no choice on the poll for those who thought it didn't present a threat to the technician (a simple dust mask would do), but that Sony should not repair the unit due to the owner's negligence (and it seems our readers agree.)
NeoGAF forum member "inner-G" also points out that the owner of the dusty PS3 in question, Reid Godshaw, is a professional actor who has been hired by Fox before.
Conspiracy Theory? You decide. (Pun certainly intended.)
Den Den Boy
Posted to Video Games, Videos on 21 November 2007
· Comments (3)
Other stuff like this: dust, fox news, playstation 3, ps3, sony, the consumerist, warranty
Well, I wiped the dust off my Wii before sending it back to Nintendo to replace its drive mechanism, and naturally they covered it under warranty, but I'm not sure how dust getting INSIDE the unit, where it would have to be in order to cause any damage, is supposed to be negligence on the part of the user.
I mean, seriously, is "failure to keep the outside of our black monolith shiny" really a valid reason to not honor a warranty on its insides?
Isn't that what compressed air is for? I'm sure that Sony have at least 1 can of it in their repair place.
What an asshole. Now I'm never one to stick up for Sony, but this is ridiculous. They shouldn't be expected to service that thing without any sort of reimbursement. Warranties generally cover hardware failure and defects (stuff the manufacturer would be responsible for), not user abuse or negligence.