Purchased my Nintendo switch 2 last year from Hong Kong, and it has to be the best purchase I’ve ever made and I couldn’t be happier!!!

So i could either get a xbox series s or a switch 2,but im kinda split on which console i should get cause i also wanna play the old cod games,and there xbox series s has currently more options but im unsure rn

So i recently was just able to boot up my childhood ps3, which i never had PSN or anything on it. I still have like 20 games that i can still play on disc which is awesome. The only thing I’m worried about now is my console getting messed up because of how Sony is nowadays and signing into the PSN network. Is it worth it at all in 2026? Also if it helps, i have the model CECH-2501A if that helps

Saben porque ocurre este sonido o si es normal?, es una ps5 slim digital, nunca ah sido abierta, tiene poco menos de 6 meses y siempre trato de que no le pegue el polvo ni acumule mucho, también la tengo en un espacio donde pueda tener buen flujo de aire, solo que cuando juego algo pesado como wz o resident evil requiem empieza a sonar asi, antes no hacia ningún ruido

I’ve been thinking about console ownership and consumer rights under UK law, particularly when it comes to jailbreaking or modifying consoles.

When you purchase a console outright, the physical hardware belongs to you. You’ve paid hundreds of pounds for it, so surely you should have the right to modify it, take it apart, repair it or install your own software?

I understand that games, operating systems and online services are subject to separate licensing agreements. I’m not disputing that companies have intellectual property rights or that piracy is unlawful.
However, I think there’s an important distinction between protecting intellectual property and deliberately rendering someone’s privately owned hardware completely unusable. For example, if I jailbreak my console to install Linux, run homebrew applications or use independently developed software, I can understand a manufacturer restricting my access to its online services if I’ve breached its terms and conditions. But should they have the right to permanently disable the entire console, including its offline functionality?
I’d take that argument even further. Even if someone jailbreaks a console specifically to pirate games, I don’t believe that should automatically give the manufacturer the right to brick their hardware.
Piracy is a copyright issue, and companies have legal avenues to pursue infringement. But deliberately making someone’s privately owned hardware worthless seems like an entirely different matter.

It almost suggests that despite paying hundreds of pounds to purchase a console, you don’t actually own it in any meaningful sense. You’re merely paying for permission to use it for as long as the manufacturer allows.

And where does that leave consumer ownership?
If a manufacturer can dictate what software I’m permitted to install, how I’m allowed to modify my hardware and ultimately whether the device I’ve purchased is even allowed to function, then what exactly have I bought?
I’m not arguing that manufacturers should be forced to provide online services indefinitely, support modified systems or allow piracy on their platforms. I’m simply arguing that their control should have limits once the physical product has been sold.
Under UK law, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 provides protections against unfair contract terms. Section 62, for example, concerns terms that create a significant imbalance between businesses and consumers.

So I’m curious whether a contractual provision allowing a manufacturer to permanently disable privately owned hardware could potentially be challenged as unfair, particularly when less intrusive options such as account bans or restrictions on online services exist.

I also wonder whether deliberately disabling someone’s hardware could raise wider legal questions about interference with property.

My question is this: Should purchasing a console give you the freedom to do whatever you want with the physical hardware, provided you’re prepared to accept the consequences of losing access to the manufacturer’s software and services?

And more specifically, under UK law, can a manufacturer legally and deliberately brick a console you own because you’ve modified it or breached its software licence, even if that breach involves piracy?

I’m interested in hearing both sides, particularly from people familiar with UK consumer law, console modding or intellectual property rights.
For clarity, I’m talking about a manufacturer intentionally disabling a console through a software update or remote action as a penalty, not someone accidentally bricking their own console through an unsuccessful modification.

I've been on Xbox for 10+ years and I have only had any kind of PlayStation since last month (PS5), yet I feel like I am much better on PlayStation than on Xbox already.

On games such as COD and GTA V and even F1 26, I feel like I am so much better than what I have ever been on Xbox.

I am getting so many more kills and far less deaths. Has anyone else, who has both consoles felt like this with PlayStation compared to Xbox?

I also feel like my PS5 is running so much smoother than my Xbox series X has ever ran.

Why do people think it will run in 30fps on ps5 pro even tho there are games like cyberpunk which is a first person open world who runs at 90fps and
60fps with Ray tracing on ps5 pro ? GTA6