A Twisty Fluken
Member
The risk of negative word of mouth is my favorite line in this thread. "Our carefully constructed media bubble is coming apart. DO SOMETHING!"
I swear you find some amazing stuff on this board.
-
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.
Just got my console (and I assume my account) banned from Live for playing Halo 4.
- Thread starter Skel1ingt0n
- Start date
The risk of negative word of mouth is my favorite line in this thread. "Our carefully constructed media bubble is coming apart. DO SOMETHING!"
I swear you find some amazing stuff on this board.
DangerousDave
Member
Is the same. Saying that if the store didn't sold the game earlier, the banning won't happen is assuming that MS acted right.
Another truth is that if MS didn't ban anyone playing the game and not in the press list, without being sure if they were pirates or simply people that got the game earlier, the banning won't happen.
Obviously the shop is indirectly responsable of the wrong ban. But the direct responsable of the wrong ban is MS, that is who reckless executed the ban.
I'm guessing a number of people posting/reading the thread don't realize who sits behind the Stinkles account.
It's what keeps me coming back!
OldJadedGamer
Banned
How would we even know they were banning if the store followed the rules? In software testing, this is called the first buggy event. Say you are testing Zelda for bugs and Link falls through the foor of the dungeon. Then as you are walking around under the level the game crashes. The bug isn't that the game crashes, the bug is that link fell through the floor. That was the first buggy event.
With this, the first wrong was the store selling the game early. Anything after that is moot since it wouldn't have happened if the store followed the rules of the contract. His issue is with the store, not MS.
No, the issue at hand here is MS banning an owner of a legitimate copy of the game. The clerk should have known better, naturally, but the ban was performed by Microsoft and so the blame for this issue lies completely with them. As another posted said earlier in the thread, its completely unrealistic to expect street dated titles in retailers' stockrooms wont be touched. Minimum wage register jockeys couldn't give a shit about the retailer getting slammed by the publisher for violating it. Moving to punish the enduser is wrong, and its clear that he was a victim of poor anti-piracy banning policies/methods.
CadetMahoney
Member
You're most likely correct.
OldJadedGamer
Banned
It was a legitimate copy, not a legitimate sale. Easy way to stop this is for the person who is banned to show a copy of the game and a copy of the reciept showing both the game and sale is valid. Then MS can unban the user and fine/blacklist the retailer.
I said it a million times, I would be on the users side if they could prove the a legitimate sale and named the store. Streetdates are there for a very important reason and MS isn't the only company that has them.
Its laughable that game companies ship games out a month early and expect every retailer in the world to sit on them just because they got some media extravaganza on some date lined up. If a dude in Germany is playing a legit copy of a game a month and a half before release its the fault of the company who thought it was a good fucking idea to ship the games early. 90 percent of publishers seem utterly incapable of policing their own production lines so because of that people who walk to a store and put down cash on a legit copy of a game have to suffer? Bullshit.
IHaveCandy
Banned
Why should a customer know better?
If you're underage and have a buddy who works at a liquor store willing to sell to you, you're still the one who is responsible when the cops pull you over. You didn't steal the booze, but you weren't allowed to purchase it in the first place. "Legitimately purchasing" isn't going to talk your way out of the M.I.P., even if you turn 21 in a week or two.
Microsoft is making the assumption that anyone playing Halo 4 online (without authorization) before the street date must be pirating. They're doing that because no stores are allowed to sell the game yet. The store broke a rule for the OP, but the OP obviously knew what was going on. OP knew the street date, knew that they weren't ringing the transaction, etc. So, playing the game online was basically like drinking in front of the cop station. OP is lucky that he's getting his account back without having to narc out the store that is also responsible.
travisbickle
Member
You're acting like Microsoft is a legitimate crime investigation organisation.
"They only remotely locked the users system so they could further the investigation into the crime of who broke the street date. If the consumer complies with MS requests he will be released."
IHaveCandy
Banned
Terrible analogy. Alcohol is a regulated substance worth legal consequences for buying and selling outside of those regulations. Games have no special legal regulations. And your analogy would only work if you assume the customer has some sort of responsibility to know when a game is officially released. Working at HameStop, we get people asking if x upcoming game is out yet. If I tell them yes and sell it to them, they are not responsible for anything. They are still a customer.
DangerousDave
Member
So now is illegal to play a game before launch date, and MS police squad will pull you over?
The law forbid that a minor buy liquor.
You see a game in a shop. You don't even need to know what is the shop is breaking the launch date. And, of course, buying and playing a game before official launch date is not forbidden by any civil or penal law.
Krauser Kat
Member
Meh. Dont break street date with a game you play online. Getting all my games through steam kind of solves all of my problems.
Street dated games are subject to fines for selling early. Not a perfect analogy but the best example I could think of to try to get the point across. If the customer in question really had no clue that he was in the wrong, a simple scan / photo of the receipt really isn't asking too much. MS would then reinstate the account and fine the store in question, and the customer would know to be cautious with that store.
DangerousDave said:
But the customer in this scenario wasn't innocent, he damn well KNEW. He was told the transaction would be rung at a later date and he was not given a receipt. He then went online with MS's most anticipated title. Ignorance card doesn't hold water for me here but even if it did, the receipt would solve the issue.
DangerousDave
Member
Forget this scenario.
MS is banning people for playing the game earlier, without knowing if the game is pirated or not, if the user knows when is the launch date, if the user kept the receipt, etc. They're banning first and asking (well, they're not even asking) later.
Unless you think that the telepathic powers of MS people made them ban this specific user because they read his mind and realised that he bought the game knowing that the shop was breaking the launch date.
Microsoft is not the law, and we aren't discussing legalities here. This is a discussion on company/service policy, making comparisons to pot deals(not you, Glass Joe, but previously in the thread) or underaged liquor purchases is a false equivalency.
Uno Venova
Banned
Why should a customer with a legit copy be going through this trouble again?
Krauser Kat
Member
Since when is breaking street date and checking out a game the day of make you a "legit" customer.
entremet
Member
I agree. This is some Big Brother kinda BS.
Street dates are some weird stuff anyway. Never understood them for games.
It's irrelevant - Microsoft doesn't have psychic capabilities (that I know of) and there's no way for them to know the terms of the sale. The fact of the matter is that a legitimate copy of the game got a user banned, in a botched anti-piracy sweep. All of the other details argued in this thread are really irrelevant to the core issue at hand, which is MS' banning policies regarding playing pre-released games. Banning pirates is one thing, but cases like the OP's make it clear that the Live enforcement team has no reliable method to differentiate between a legitimate and a pirated copy of a game - and that's not good.
IHaveCandy
Banned
It is asking too much. It's treating your paying customers like shit. This has to be the worst kind of DRM ever. It shouldn't be tolerated by customers.
No his issue is with MS for banning him for no good reason.
I don't believe you, I think the user should be unbanned and Microsoft should issue an apology, It's a legit copy and if he posts a reciept great if not fine but nobody ever should be banned for playing a game that's been bought and played before it's released date. Street Dates are bullshit and always have been, they are there for the marketing of the game and that's it, they serve a purpose but it's not a good purpose.
I don't see how anyone reasonable could side with Microsoft in this.
Who cares if he bought it early knowning the street date, there's no reason he should have been banned and it's pathetic some are defending MS on this.
As an intolerant customer, I'd be pissed at the place who sold the game to me early. "You got my account banned by selling this game before the street date. I had to scan my receipt to get it reinstated. I'm never buying from you again!"
IHaveCandy
Banned
And I'd be upset at Microsoft for banning my account as well.
OldJadedGamer
Banned
No.
To forget this scenario is to go off topic and start talking about "what ifs". I am talking about the information provided in the OP and nothing else. We could go in circles all day long taking different scenarios but again... that is off topic.
Every one of my posts has been using the information in the OP. He knew he shouldn't have bought it, says the sale was "shady" (in his own words) the clerk didn't ring up the sale and he never got a receipt. He admits that he knew there would be risks. He took the risks and complained when he got burned.
I'm not going to post talking about some random made up doe eyed naive customer, I'm talking about the guy who created this thread and his experience.
OMG you brought a magazine before the offical street date, I will now ban you from buying other magazines for ever.
or
You brought the new limited edition Mars bar before the offical street date and you forget the receipt, I will now ban you from eating it. You may only look at the Mars bar, nothing else.
or
You brought the new limited edition Mars bar before the offical street date and you forget the receipt, I will now ban you from eating it. You may only look at the Mars bar, nothing else.
Average Joe gamer would probably do the following:
1) Get banned
2) Call or Tweet MS Support
3) Be directed to post in the forums
4) Be asked to post and/or email a copy of the proof of purchase
5) Get unbanned
Far from being SOL.
Wrong. He'd call/tweet support, they'd see that the account was banned for a TOS violation, and send him on his merry way. XBL Support is instructed not to address user bans for any reason.
Forsaken82
Member
Actually accordiing to law i am pretty sure the store clerk is at fault in that alcohol scenario as it is illegal to sell to a minor.
Ace Harding
Member
They're both at fault, actually. But alcohol =/= video games. It is not illegal to purchase a game before release date.
I hope you're not suggesting that if you drink underage, you'll be okay with a sales receipt. Ignorant or not, you'd still get busted. In the alcohol scenario, both the clerk and the customer are at fault and each face consequences.
I don't know if it's "illegal" to sell a game before street date, but it is violating an agreement between the retailer and publisher that results in fines. Agree or not, Microsoft is exercising their right to protect their property and have the power under the user agreement to ban accounts. Assuming that copies being played before the official sell date are not legitimate (pirated, stolen, etc) is reasonable. The bottom line is the original poster knew the clerk was being shady, and the clerk knew better too. The customer was inconvenienced but got his account back, despite not even having a receipt.
ShinobiFist
Banned
Not everyone knows about broken street dates, so kill that noise. I refuse to believe non-corporate individuals are defending MS here. Ya looking very suspect right now. The game was bought from a legit business(Not from some dude in the streets)
OldJadedGamer
Banned
OP knew about the broken street date. How do you know it was a legit business? The OP has never said which business it was.
ShinobiFist
Banned
The minor just gets the parent called in most of the time. And also, is not illegal to purchase a broken street date item. The customer is not at fault at all. And this has been repeated an abundance of times. And the fact you're defending such actions is what is killing this industry. I remember people actually defended the whole root kit bs from SONY. Again, very suspect of such actions.
ShinobiFist
Banned
Is not illegal to purchase a broken street date item, regardless if the consumer knows or not. The consumer did NOT sign a contract with MS. I'm sure he got it from a mom and pop shop. And I'm sure the OP doesn't want to snitch.
The ban message is something about playing a title early, so it could be in the TOS or something.
Thing is, some stores broke the street date and in those cases people don't get banned. But the OP case seems like a exceptional case. He didn't even got a receipt.
OldJadedGamer
Banned
And the sale wasn't registered on the stores end either. On paper, the transaction never took place.
MS isn't perusing the customer legally, as far as I know. He got a frozen account due to suspected piracy. Stores aren't allowed to sell Halo 4, so it follows that a user's copy of Halo 4 must be suspicious.
The customer knew about the street date violation. You stating that he isn't at fault at all an abundance of times doesn't necessarily make it so, in my eyes.
Funny thing about street dates is that they're supposed to help small retailers. Major chains tend to get shipments earlier, so street dates are supposed to level the playing field. A mom & pop knowingly circumventing their agreement without repercussions would be unfair.
Be suspicious all you want. The game's not for sale yet and therefore, MS blocked the dude's account and then reinstated it after communicating. Not all that illogical or unreasonable to me.
DangerousDave
Member
No, because MS banned a user without knowing if he has the receipt or is he knew that he was playing a game before the official release date.
He saw a user online that it was not on the press list and banned it. As far as we can tell, there has been plenty of other bans, so is not strange to think that other people who bought the game has been also banned. Not everyone has a gaf account to rant.
It isn't the buyers burden to know the street date. In this case the buyer knew, but ultimately the retailer sold it.
How about a gaming media site report about all the people getting banned? They always post about pirates getting banned and legit buyers not being banned. How about legit people actually getting banned?
I haven't seen every post. With no offense, the consensus is the OP is 100% legit?
Maybe MS magically knows when a receipt is issued.
How about a gaming media site report about all the people getting banned? They always post about pirates getting banned and legit buyers not being banned. How about legit people actually getting banned?
I haven't seen every post. With no offense, the consensus is the OP is 100% legit?
Maybe MS magically knows when a receipt is issued.
ShinobiFist
Banned
You know what, all this discussion about street dates and such is stupid, MS could ban you for no reason, it says so in the TOS, no point in discussing the subject further, because blinded consumers ruined this industry.
I still dont understand how this isnt a massive violation of consumer rights. Its not like its a message board, youre paying for the hardware and the service. If companies have the right to do this then they should institute full refunds to people who's console and membership they just nullified.
It's because "consumer rights" are almost non-existent here in the US of A, but that's another story for another thread over in OT.
Thats what happens when a country is run by corporations and marketing.
Oh yea i forgot. Im just 'renting' all the shit i pay for.
OldJadedGamer
Banned
Those other people if innocent would have to take their issue up with the store. The OP knew he was doing something wrong which is why he is hiding who the store is. Again, we can't go around assuming to cry for all the innocent victims out there or nasty stores just waiting to break street date. Lets discuss the actual topic of the thread and the information provided by the OP. Not some made up scenario to fit an agenda.
The OP admits in the very first post it wasn't a legit sale. Think of it like working under the table then crying about it when the IRS asks where you got the income. You knew you were working under the table, the guy giving you the job working under knew it and you both know the risks are are willing to roll the dice. Then when the IRS asks about it, making sure you don't say who gave you the job so that you can work for him again under the table in the future. OP is hiding and protecting the name of the store for a big reason, because he admits they shouldn't have sold him the disc in the first and it was "shady" when it happened.
Not sure if serious? almost every service you sign up, if you do something wrong with the service, the company has the right to shutdown your account with no refund.