I think he's referring to the 4.66 "mandatory" update, which is pretty well-documented out there on the internet. Here's one report I found on (what seems to be) a gaming site:
Sony has officially updated the PS3 firmware to 4.66. This is a mandatory firmware update which is required to be able to connect online on the PlayStation 3.
It's a scandal because if you own hardware, it should be up to you to decide what code it runs, and when and if it updates. How many meetings have I seen interrupted by people whose Windows laptops just suddenly decided to update themselves?
I agree that releasing software with bugs in is problematic, but it's also very likely unavoidable, and the correct response is not to strongarm your users into applying updates on your schedule. In any case, from a free-software standpoint, the model that requires you to participate in distributed gaming by paying for a device which you then don't control, and which can therefore be relied on to dob you up if you try to use it in a way which others might not approve, is a broken model. Using that model to justify forcing me to apply updates is anathema.
Moreover, although I accept that some updates are motivated by usability fixes, proprietary corporations have a very bad track record when it comes to restricting themselves to mandating only those updates which relate to user wellbeing.
Edit: the OP makes a good point about the social cost of individuals not keeping up with patches. If society, en bloc, finds it of net benefit to require that people keep up with their patches, then society is free to make regulations to require it. But those will come through the normal social processes of regulation - debate in legislatures, drafting committees, press scrutiny - and so on; not through some corporation declaring ex cathedra that it has unilaterally decided that a particular patch must be applied For The Good Of All.
If as a society we were to engage in such an exercise, I'd venture that the software creators would be required to yield much corporate ground (in terms of eg scrutiny, control, benefice) in return for the power to mandate that a particular update be applied. And such a tradeoff would, to my mind, be right and proper.