Untrue. It was around quite a while back that Y2kev suggested that it may be an automated system that's banning. Regardless, it's the annoyance of having such blanket ban that caused the upheaval.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
MS banning users over Halo 4 DLC debacle
- Thread starter Plywood
- Start date
Untrue. It was around quite a while back that Y2kev suggested that it may be an automated system that's banning. Regardless, it's the annoyance of having such blanket ban that caused the upheaval.
Doug Heffernan
Member
This statement from 343 should be re-posted for you all to see:
It was a glitch AND it was an isolated incident (less than 200 people).
In conclusion, you guys made a big deal out of nothing; good job.
So ~9 pages almost full of unbridled hatred over a mistake that effected 200 of the thousands that played? Happy it's been sorted out.
I agree it's shitty to have mistakes like this happen, and they do happen, but it's disgusting that I'm not surprised to see people jump to conclusions like this was some malicious move done on purpose. Is it wrong that I want to see these irrational groups at GAF just banned for the hell of it? Give them something to bitch about is what I say. And every company, whether it's MS, Nintendo, or Sony, has their own group of people willing to jump to the most negative assumption.
It's pretty sad really...
I agree it's shitty to have mistakes like this happen, and they do happen, but it's disgusting that I'm not surprised to see people jump to conclusions like this was some malicious move done on purpose. Is it wrong that I want to see these irrational groups at GAF just banned for the hell of it? Give them something to bitch about is what I say. And every company, whether it's MS, Nintendo, or Sony, has their own group of people willing to jump to the most negative assumption.
It's pretty sad really...
riskVSreward
Member
GAF... ya'll should be ashamed of yourself.
BigTnaples
Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
Tallshortman
Member
An automated system that is unfairly banning people (and unintentionally for the specified reasons) is a completely different story than Microsoft consciously baiting people into downloading something they're not supposed to be downloading and then banning them for it. That's mere oversight.
I'm confused, what did Lima get banned for? Making a generalized statement about GAF?
Surface of Me
I'm not an NPC. And neither are we.
Yup, the people who do this are just as bad as the corporate shills IMO.
At least it would make GAF so much nicer and less frustrating to read!
I can never decide who's more annoying. The people who who defend their favourite company constantly, or the ones who jump on anything negative about another.
Wait so it was less than 200 people? Shit the way this thread was going i thought thousands of Live users were being banned.
Right, because the Bungie Banhammer never, ever, made false postitives or anything else.
Both are annoying and serve no purpose.
onlyindreams
Banned
I'll admit that I've defended studios against the lynch mobs that can form at GAF. However I only do that for the developers since we never see the whole story behind a game's development (more often than not the publishers can deal with the shit they create IMO =p).
However I never understood these people who are so willing to leap on negative news or rumors pertaining to a specific company. Almost nothing is as bad as it's made out to be on the internet, and there is usually more to any story, which is why I wait before grabbing my pitchfork and torch. What's worse is that even people in the industry have fallen within that category in this thread, when they should know better IMO. This thread has been kept alive since it was created and now that the update is out, it's died so fast. I guess it's a good thing that people aren't defending the actions of some in this thread since that would basically be defending irrational thought and behavior on GAF and no one wants that IMO.
Palette Swap
Member
That's a roundabout way of looking at things. The other way might be to wonder why people would so easily believe MS could do that and not give a fuck. Most people complaining here aren't console warriors, they're Halo players.
That should tell you something about how MS could reap this mistrust come next gen if they fuck up their launch one way or another.
Phaethon0017
Member
I will ask my friend if everything is working smoothly on his end. I'm sure he'll be thrilled to have been in such an exclusive group. After the PR spin they did on why everyone got Crimson DLC in the first place I'm inclined to disbelieve their estimate.
Mr. Enigma
Member
No. He's proven his copy is legit and that he paid for it, but the place he bought it from didn't print a receipt for him until launch day to avoid issues. So what it comes down to is that MS wants him to snitch on the store that sold it to him and they are using his console/gamertag as leverage. Although he said he went out, bought another Xbox, and made another gamertag anyways (so he basically rewarded MS for fucking him over).
Mr. Enigma
Member
Are you seriously trying to excuse the fact that this even happened in the first place?
They deserve all the hate they get and yes at least this problem was easily fixed but there are tons of issues including the guy that got banned in halo 4 for playing early and they still never unbanned him.
Not really, shitty is shitty. If you think people didn't jump the gun or look at Microsoft as being Scrooge + Hitler than you need to reread the first few pages.
What do you mean tons of issues? That guy's incident is unforutante and once again shitty, but Microsoft's banning policy isn't as flawed or terrible as some are making it out to be. Is it flawed in that guy's instance? Absolutely.
200 people isnt nothing tbh, if i was banned id be livid.
It's the whole bit about convincing the store clerk to sell it to him early that puts Skel in the wrong.
Well there is the little bit of law which says the actions described above aren't kosher. I mean, it's a tiny thing, so it's easy to overlook and ignore rather than address, but it does kind of matter if you're trying to be objective about the situation.
There is a difference between walking into a store and buying something on the shelf that was put out early and walking into a store and convincing a shopkeeper to break an existing contract and sell you something that he or she isn't supposed to be selling.
The first is an innocent act on the part of the buyer. The second, notsomuch.
Funny, didn't you reply to me yesterday saying that Skel's Halo 4 ban situation was irrelevant? Guess your opinion has changed since you're commenting on it. That said, based on what was described, your statement is in conflict with established law on the situation.
While you may not like it, denial isn't going to change it.
For the Crimson bans, MS is totally in the wrong. Good it was fixed quickly, still they probably should have sent out something to those impacted as an apology. CS seems to treat 1 month XBL suns like candy, so I would have expected something like that. As for the other situation, see my reply above or in the OT.
Mr. Enigma
Member
Why are people saying fuck Microsoft?
Weren't 343 the ones banning people from Halo 4 matchmaking?
Have to admit, as much as I love Halo 4, everything to do with this game outside of its visuals, and it's core gameplay have been quite the write off. 343 need to just let go, and learn from many MANY mistakes for Halo 5. It's like they were so busy stressing over w the game looked and felt, they forgot that there's more to worry about than just that.
Weren't 343 the ones banning people from Halo 4 matchmaking?
Have to admit, as much as I love Halo 4, everything to do with this game outside of its visuals, and it's core gameplay have been quite the write off. 343 need to just let go, and learn from many MANY mistakes for Halo 5. It's like they were so busy stressing over w the game looked and felt, they forgot that there's more to worry about than just that.
faceless007
Member
How many times does it have to be explained to you that street dates are not codified in law and consumers are not bound by them?
If you're right, cite the damn law.
You apparently completely misunderstood what I wrote: I thought the fact that you brought up tort law was (and still is) irrelevant to this situation. Is there even any precedence of tort law being applied in such a manner or being applicable to this case? I'm highly doubtful.
But I don't even care, because MS banning someone over playing a game early and then demanding proof of ownership for playing a retail copy is absolutely inappropriate. Piracy is a problem MS has to deal with themselves, not something they should fight on the backs of their customers.
Doug Heffernan
Member
Halo 3 wasn't perfect 1 month after launch either.
It takes time to balance a game and get the multiplayer fine-tuned.
It takes time to balance a game and get the multiplayer fine-tuned.
*sigh*
Look though my post history and you'll see that I have. It's just that no one has bothered to actually respond to the point.
I even included a link to a nice layman's explanation in the OT.
If you want to look it up, crack open any law book and read about tortious interference with a contract. It's long established common law in the U.S. (so would apply to Skel's situation).
Keeping it short, you're not allowed to induce another to break a pre-existing contract with a third party. That's why Skel's interaction with the retailer is the key point and why it's what my posts on the situation have focused on.
By convincing the clerk to break street date and sell him the copy of Halo 4 early, Skel was knowingly working to get that store to break its contract with Microsoft. It's that specific action which creates the tort, not the actual sale.
Typically, restitution involves preventing the tortfeasor from benefiting from the situation they caused.
I brought it up because all of the known facts (as posted in the OT) fit perfectly with Skel's situation. If you think I've misread something and there's an error in the reasoning, by all means, please point it out.
The one point where I can see reasonable disagreement is the length of the ban. Absent the ToS (which gives MS the ability to do as it pleases), one could argue that the proper response under the tort would be to simply ban Skel for a month (or alternatively to ban him from Halo 4's MP) as that would have prevented him from benefiting.
Since nothing posted by him shows malice or an intent to harm MS, punitive damages wouldn't be applicable and there is an argument to be made that permanently banning the account and the console is punitive.
I suppose you could try to argue that there is no actionable tort when someone is interfering with an illegal contract, but showing that contracts regulating street dates are illegal would be a massive uphill battle. I'm not even sure where I would start if I were attempting that angle.
I've got nothing against people disagreeing with existing law. Hell, there's plenty of laws that I find morally and ethically repugnant myself. But just because we disagree with them doesn't mean they are invalid. That only happens by getting them changed.
HiredN00bs
Member
343 Industries is Microsoft.
Uno Venova
Banned
He convinced him?
So him going to the clerk and buying a game that's not released yet is breaking a contract that he never signed? that he has no part of? also which is not applicable to him that he is rightfully banned and doesn't have any recourse?
Your insane and you can try to spin the law anyway you want but that doesn't make it okay for them to ban him for any amount of time when he has a legit copy of the game.
Of course didn't you know that Microsoft is the one in the right and any user convinced the store to sell him a copy and he deserves to be banned?
I still can't believe anyone is defending MS here.
There's no real spin as, again, it's well established common law.
If parties A & B have a legal, valid contract and party C causes B to break the contract with A, either for the benefit of C and/or to harm A, C can be held liable.
If you want to argue the points of the law, I'm all ears, but resorting to personal attacks doesn't address the issue at all.
He said in the original post that he got the employee to sell it early. The game wasn't out on the shelf or anything like that.
faceless007
Member
Thanks, I had missed that post. My thoughts:
First, you are assuming Skel's actions were sufficiently manipulative to constitute inducing the store worker. He hasn't (IIRC) been specific about exactly how it went down but it would seem unlikely to me that a single customer could use force or coercion or even sufficient pressure to get a retail clerk to do something that he must know puts his own employer at risk, unless the worker was already more or less inclined to do it as a favor (which is more or less what he alluded to).
Second, from your own link:
What were the damages to Microsoft?
Third, if MS do in fact have a civil tort against Skel, they should pursue that claim through the civil system. Put another way: the fact that MS initiated extra-legal punishment by banning him from their proprietary service is orthogonal to the question of whether he broke the law, because their own TOS allow them to ban users for any reason at all.
Since you've said you think MS was mostly ethically in the wrong, I'm not sure what your actual argument is. If it's that MS had the right to ban him, I'm pretty sure we all know that's in the TOS, no one's arguing against that. If it's that MS banned him specifically as punishment for committing a civil tort against them, I'm not sure the evidence supports that conclusion.
People also forget that the Halo 2 BR was completely useless at launch as well, it took an autoupdate to transform it into the beast we all reminisce about.
Nealand Liquor
Member
Lol funny thread. MS hate runs so deep on thia board.
It's the flavor of the month. Next week this forum will be completely anti-Sony.
200 according to 343. They could easily have given a low number to play it down.
Nah everyday on GAF is 'year of the PS3'
so only <200 players..? good thing this didn't happen to as many people playing madden online on the WiiU.
Uno Venova
Banned
Okay, it wasn't out on the shelf, not seeing anywhere that he convinced the seller, sounds like assumptions.
It's not entirely clear that he wasn't the seller himself either. What's your point?
The game wasn't out and he didn't buy it in a normal transaction, so pretending he was an uninformed gamer caught by surprise is just flat out incorrect.
Uno Venova
Banned
He wasn't an uninformed gamer nor was he convincing the seller as far as we know.
It was in the op at one point, but it's such a convoluted mess of edits now that it's not worth trying to puzzle out. The guy's Gamertag seems to show he got past Halo games early as well, but played offline, so it's not like this was his first time doing it.
Similar threads
- Locked