and are probably going out of business, but that's OK! Street dates and microsoft banning people is anti consumer, lack of competition by mom and pop shops breaking street dates is pro consumer! (another case of gaf not really knowing what is and what isn't pro/anti consumer)
-
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
and are probably going out of business, but that's OK! Street dates and microsoft banning people is anti consumer, lack of competition by mom and pop shops breaking street dates is pro consumer! (another case of gaf not really knowing what is and what isn't pro/anti consumer)
This policy does absolutely nothing to prevent piracy. Unless you think making pirates wait until street date to play their pirated copy makes them want to go out and pay money for a copy they also could not play until street date.
DAREALGUMMY
Member
Why would your wife play it if she wasn't a gamer? Wife sounds shady to me.
How is it not anti consumer? Best Buy is not a consumer.
That's not the point. I used Best Buy as an example, but it's equally applicable to any retailer that plays by the rules.
ScreenSplitter
Member
What if this happened to some kid who had no idea about street dates etc. Completely unfair. Man are Microsoft ever due a fall.
michaelius
Banned
Of course there is - if the game would be pirate copy then multiple people would have disc with same ID number
So if a person stole money from a kid, buy taking his cash and giving him an illegitimate copy we have to trash Microsoft? Microsoft didn't want that kid to get the game and put quite a few safeguards in place to make sure. Blame the store/person if anyone. Then you blame the kid for not getting a receipt.
also this. And make sure the store the kid bought it from gets ratted out if you are pro consumer.
DAREALGUMMY
Member
Call them and explain he bought it and get unbanned?
gaming_noob
Member
:lol Yep thousands upon thousands of people should lose their jobs over this.
JimmyRustler
Member
Should have seen it coming OP.
Lets be cerial here for a moment.... You wait friggin 2 years to get a sequel to Halo 3 and then can't wait a couple more days to play it? Oh lawd... Stinkles shouldn't have unbanned you.
Lets be cerial here for a moment.... You wait friggin 2 years to get a sequel to Halo 3 and then can't wait a couple more days to play it? Oh lawd... Stinkles shouldn't have unbanned you.
Except that 999 out of 1000 of the people they're banning for early release play are undoubtedly pirates.
element
Member
Remote at best.
1. Majority of stores aren't displaying the fact that they have copies. So no one is pointing at a copy and say "I want to buy that"
2. Majority of stores registers/POS prevent the game even being sold.
People keep making this sound like anyone can walk into Best Buy and go buy Halo and get screwed over by the awful Microsoft. MS is just protecting their game. In the end it is the clerks to blame, ask they are the one circumventing the register/pos.
ChosenPredator
Banned
MS is good with this shit all you have to do is call them if you didn't do nada wrong it will be corrected
Yep, and also people with money WILL pirate a game only to play it early. They are probably losing so many sales from this, and in reality we can't complain when digital distribution becomes the only method to buy new games...and a select few have made this an inevitability.
We have no idea, because the system doesn't check for that in any respect. Which is exactly why a guy with a physical copy gets banned just the same as anyone else. Pirates are no more or less inconvenienced by this policy than guys like the OP, or a reviewer that happens to mistakenly get left off the whitelist. It's not a system that exists to combat piracy, or else it would actually impact the decision to pirate or purchase, not just the decision of when to start playing.
Regardless of how many of them are pirates (which I submit is likely the vast majority), legitimate customers have an avenue of recourse that's not available to the pirates.
Let Microsoft ban and then unban. Every minute the game is played illegitimately is $ stolen from Microsoft. I don't see any alternative to the system that is in place, and while pirates are not more inconvenienced by this practice they ultimately have no reprieve after the ban. I don't see how a system could 100% tell if a person is a pirate, but the system does work since everyone is banned and then those that prove they are legitimate are unbanned. In fact, I see it as the only effective way for Microsoft to deal with the problem as of now, but I'm open as is Microsoft probably to hearing about other methods to deal with this situation that you might propose.
The gist of it is: "Also, I don't have a receipt. Bought it from a local game shop; they said they'd "ring it out" on launch day. Obviously a bit shady- but far from fucking stealing."
ClosingADoor
Member
The system doesn't work when people who paid money for a product are banned from playing it. $60 is a lot of money and then your console and gamertag gets banned from online play, which you also pay for. It's a disgrace. If they can't figure out who are pirates and who aren't, they shouldn't ban anyone. And they shouldn't punish the consumer for a fault the store makes. The store isn't allowed to sell the product due to an agreement with Microsoft. The consumer is in no way at fault here, he did not make any agreement with Microsoft about buying the product, the only one he has dealt with is the store who was willing to sell him a product. And it costs Microsoft money? In what way. The game is paid for.
I can't honestly think of a single reason to side with Microsoft's banning policy on this.
They run their own private servers, so they get to determine who connects to them.
Nobody has a right to connect to Live.
You can still play the game.
Mmmm, I've been musing on various forms of ownership law lately (particularly relating to DD software and on-disc locked DLC), and I'm curious whether you're saying that the copy is not legitimate in the eyes of the law or if it's not legitimate in the eyes of Microsoft. The former would be intriguing.
Edit: Ah, I read a bit further. So it being sold was in breach of contract, meaning that the store was not authorised to sell that product at that point; the transaction was illegitmate, albeit illegitimate on the part of the store, not the purchaser; you have not legitimately purchased a copy of the software.
Except... have you really? Who owns the product before the release date? I'm thinking for all this to hold out, it means Microsoft are the entity that actually owns those copies prior to release date. Which strikes me as a little curious, but just about seems to hold together.
While some of what you say is true, ultimately Microsoft is liable for the quality of the product being sold. When street dates are broken, they can not guarantee this quality in so many ways that they promise to the customer. Please don't be obtuse... see BOTH sides of the issue.
then why won´t you see that some people do not know about street dates..? they can get fucked up because a store breaks street date..? normally nothing would happen, but because Microsoft is real strict with a game like Halo 4, people will be in a pretty bad situation..
I don't blame those people... there are means by which they can enjoy the game and Microsoft will fix their ban.
They can get fucked up because a store breaks street dates, sells them something without a receipt, and doesn't give them what was 'advertised' just as well. Who is liable for this transaction?
I can't imagine a modern consumer wouldn't question a purchase in which:
a) he's only allowed to pay cash
b) the clerk refuses to give him a receipt
c) on the cover is a giant orange sticker saying, "Do not sell before this date!"
d) the copies aren't up on display, but rather are stashed away in a crate in the back room
Your reasoning is so twisted and obtuse that I'm convinced you're playing around.
This was part of Frankie's reasoning, actually.
LMAO.
I never said their system doesn't work; it's clear that it works because guys like the OP get banned with a quickness. I said it doesn't affect piracy, because this system does not exist to affect piracy. It's there to stop people from playing before a particular date - we know this because that is literally all it is actually effective in deterring. That they might even ban a pirate as a result of this policy is only a bonus that they can do nothing but hope happens. There is no reason to try and defend this policy on the basis that it is an anti-piracy measure.
It does combat piracy. It's just that it also confers a hassle to some legitimate customers who have to go through the unbanning process. You're acting like this is affecting mostly legitimate customers, when any level headed person knows that's not the truth.
HollovVpo1nt
Banned
Read through the first couple of pages. Man, people really take any chance they get to smash Microsoft or portrait them as an evil company. Think for a second people, think.
Halo 4 is a videogame that will be distributed via various retailers. A publisher publishes the game. It is the choice of a retailer to sell the game and it is the right of a publisher to have/ enforce general selling conditions. This varies from publiser to publisher, game to game. Everyone has their reasons. In the case of Halo 4, the general conditions might be strict because the game and franchise is huge. Again, this varies from publisher to publisher. Gamers are not to judge this.
So a publisher sells their games to a distributor and sets a street date and/or other conditions. This is a contract. A general street date is set for different reasons. Just to name a few:
- Tie-ins with marketing
- Prepping network
- Maintaning steady level of interest
For example, if a game is beeing sold prior to the street date and, for example, the online servers/ services aren't up yet or the day 1 patch isn't up yet, it might not represent the game as it's meant to be, which could lead to bad word of mouth spreading, potentially damaging sales. Once this has happened, it will be extremely difficult, dare I say impossible, to undo the harm.
So you could imagine why a strict street date is very important for a publisher. But now in the case of the OP. Sure, there will be people who don't browse forums or do something else that might alert them to not play Halo 4 before launch. That's ok. Sure not everyone watches TV and sees a Halo 4 ad showing a launch date. But most importantly, not everyone assumes a launch date is a boundary. This is where the reponsibility of a retailer comes in.
Retailers have to enforce the street date. They have a contract. Whether that is reasonable or not is not for the gamer to decide, because -like i've tried to explain in the first paragraph - there is a lot at stake.
So here's the following scenario. The retailer sells his game to a person. Prior to release. Simply put, only the retailer has made a mistake. He broke his contract. If the person has bought a legal copy, then he can not be punished for it. This is where it gets interesting. A legal copy is enforced by a receipt. The receipt on it's own is a contract between you and the retailer. It's a contract that enforces the retailer to live up the conditions enforced by the contract. This is the reason why you're receipt warrants you a warrantee period. For example, if you buy a laptop, you basically seal a contract that warrants you 2-3 years of warrantee, and if it gets broken withing that period, your contract/receipt enforces the retailer to fix the problem.
The OP's, however, did not have a receipt. There is no way to prove that what he bought was legitimate. He is very lucky that stinkles stood up for him. Let's imagine if he did have a receipt and he still got banned.
So Microsoft contracted these retailers with street dates. By contracting all these retailers, Microsoft can assume that no copy is sold by them prior to launch date. It is then legally safe to assume that any other way of getting the game prior to release date is illegitimate. Ultimately, that is the purpose of a contract. So they ban people playing the game early, because they assume that because all the retailers are under a contract, the game must be illegitimate. It is then a logical step to ban the person. Unless, the buyer has a receipt, which is a legal contract. In that case, it is withing the right of the buyer to contact Microsoft, and by showing the receipt, enforce Microsoft that they didn't do wrong. The conclusion will then be that the retailer broke his contract.
To summarise, it's not wrong for Microsoft to ban. Microsoft contracts retailers, therefor assumes that the game will not be in the hands of gamers through the retailers prior to the conditions set in the contract, and can therefor assume that any copy of the game registered on their servers prior to release date is illegitimate. If a player can show it is legitimate, through a receipt, they they are also withing their right.
Conclusion: Microsoft did nothing wrong by banning you (see wall of thext above). When you are banned, show you have a legit copy by showing your receipt, Microsoft will have to unban you. If you can not, you're also in the wrong and the ban is justified.
Halo 4 is a videogame that will be distributed via various retailers. A publisher publishes the game. It is the choice of a retailer to sell the game and it is the right of a publisher to have/ enforce general selling conditions. This varies from publiser to publisher, game to game. Everyone has their reasons. In the case of Halo 4, the general conditions might be strict because the game and franchise is huge. Again, this varies from publisher to publisher. Gamers are not to judge this.
So a publisher sells their games to a distributor and sets a street date and/or other conditions. This is a contract. A general street date is set for different reasons. Just to name a few:
- Tie-ins with marketing
- Prepping network
- Maintaning steady level of interest
For example, if a game is beeing sold prior to the street date and, for example, the online servers/ services aren't up yet or the day 1 patch isn't up yet, it might not represent the game as it's meant to be, which could lead to bad word of mouth spreading, potentially damaging sales. Once this has happened, it will be extremely difficult, dare I say impossible, to undo the harm.
So you could imagine why a strict street date is very important for a publisher. But now in the case of the OP. Sure, there will be people who don't browse forums or do something else that might alert them to not play Halo 4 before launch. That's ok. Sure not everyone watches TV and sees a Halo 4 ad showing a launch date. But most importantly, not everyone assumes a launch date is a boundary. This is where the reponsibility of a retailer comes in.
Retailers have to enforce the street date. They have a contract. Whether that is reasonable or not is not for the gamer to decide, because -like i've tried to explain in the first paragraph - there is a lot at stake.
So here's the following scenario. The retailer sells his game to a person. Prior to release. Simply put, only the retailer has made a mistake. He broke his contract. If the person has bought a legal copy, then he can not be punished for it. This is where it gets interesting. A legal copy is enforced by a receipt. The receipt on it's own is a contract between you and the retailer. It's a contract that enforces the retailer to live up the conditions enforced by the contract. This is the reason why you're receipt warrants you a warrantee period. For example, if you buy a laptop, you basically seal a contract that warrants you 2-3 years of warrantee, and if it gets broken withing that period, your contract/receipt enforces the retailer to fix the problem.
The OP's, however, did not have a receipt. There is no way to prove that what he bought was legitimate. He is very lucky that stinkles stood up for him. Let's imagine if he did have a receipt and he still got banned.
So Microsoft contracted these retailers with street dates. By contracting all these retailers, Microsoft can assume that no copy is sold by them prior to launch date. It is then legally safe to assume that any other way of getting the game prior to release date is illegitimate. Ultimately, that is the purpose of a contract. So they ban people playing the game early, because they assume that because all the retailers are under a contract, the game must be illegitimate. It is then a logical step to ban the person. Unless, the buyer has a receipt, which is a legal contract. In that case, it is withing the right of the buyer to contact Microsoft, and by showing the receipt, enforce Microsoft that they didn't do wrong. The conclusion will then be that the retailer broke his contract.
To summarise, it's not wrong for Microsoft to ban. Microsoft contracts retailers, therefor assumes that the game will not be in the hands of gamers through the retailers prior to the conditions set in the contract, and can therefor assume that any copy of the game registered on their servers prior to release date is illegitimate. If a player can show it is legitimate, through a receipt, they they are also withing their right.
Conclusion: Microsoft did nothing wrong by banning you (see wall of thext above). When you are banned, show you have a legit copy by showing your receipt, Microsoft will have to unban you. If you can not, you're also in the wrong and the ban is justified.
Spot the difference. I'm implying the inclusion of kneePat's collective set of inane drivel in this thread placing more blame than necessary on the OP in my reply to him, fwiw.
I'll need a source for this.
if you put it like that then I see your point.. I just never "assumed" the stickers where on this copy (the stickers in this thread where on older games).. I can see it looks shady.
Impeccable
Member
Good lord, apologists for everything.
You bolded the wrong part. My inane drivel? Seriously... that is just a counter to the ridiculousness that is unfolding in this thread. I don't want to crucify OP. I want people to realize that OP was complicit in an illegal transaction, SO stop making a big deal about the ban and blaming Microsoft. They (MS) are going to get the majority of the blame anyway, but people NEED to see that they ban because it would be a bigger fail on their part if they didn't. The system in place is actually to protect consumers NOT to harm them.
As an aside - a sort-of corollary to this - I've never quite understood why Blizzard (or any MMO company) doesn't release their expansions for sale a week or so before it goes live. It'd prevent the account maintenance servers (where you enter the code from the package) from getting swamped on the release date, and allow people to get into the game at their own pace.
A receipt is NOT a contract in any way... a Contract is something else.. a receipt is a receipt. A contract is a contract..
HollovVpo1nt
Banned
Defense for the banning in the first place, and explanation two why bans like that are not wrong.
Well, where I'm from, a receipt acts as a contract between the retailer and the store, by the civil code of the Netherlands. I can imagine a receipt fullfilling the same role in the US.
HollovVpo1nt
Banned
Douple post, my bad.
It does not combat piracy, it combats playing the game before street date. That is the only reason this policy exists, and the only thing this policy actions on. Pirating a copy of a game confers no additional risk that did not already exist because of this policy. When every single pirate is able to circumvent this policy by the same means as legitimate players, it means that stopping pirates is neither more or less a goal than stopping anyone else. Or to think of it another way, were this policy 100% effective in leveraging its power as deterrance, exactly zero pirates would ever be banned by it.
Zeouterlimits
Member
If JTAG Xboxes can mod Reach, then perhaps they could do the same for 4, impacting reviewers experience online?
From a PR perspective, the reviews are worth more than the stories about the few consumers caught in the crossfire.
And no, I don't think the whitelist is a good idea. The JTAG exploit lies at the feet of MS, the contractual breaks at the feet of the retailers.
From a PR perspective, the reviews are worth more than the stories about the few consumers caught in the crossfire.
And no, I don't think the whitelist is a good idea. The JTAG exploit lies at the feet of MS, the contractual breaks at the feet of the retailers.
HollovVpo1nt
Banned
So it is not the same as a contract. But it can be used as a tool to enforce general conditions. Which is why is said that it act as a contract. Again, where I'm from it's different but I can imagine a receipt playing the role I described in the paragraph a few posts back.
I'm an expert
Formerly worldrevolution. The only reason I am nice to anyone else is to avoid being banned.
I can't believe people still argued this with element through the night.
- Getting a game early is neat, but it should not be possible for obvious reasons.
- In today's online service world, going online with the game and announcing to Microsoft you have the game is a stupid thing.
- In 2012, buying something without a receipt is moronic. Let me guess, the op also paid with cash, and not a traceable form of payment like debit/credit? Moronic (or the op is lying).
- The consequences of early copies out in the wild should be obvious. If I received a copy of Halo 4 now I could stream/record the whole thing, leak out major points that might turn people off, or maybe even convince more people to buy the game due to xyz. This is proven by the op coming to gaf to talk about the damn game as if he was the special snowflake with inside info.
- No one cares about the "average gamer" who had no idea and yadi bladi. Everyone is in the same in MS's eyes, regular customers, pirates, gaf members, anyone with the game that shouldn't have it.
- The EULA and TOS you agree to allow them to ban your account for anything, anytime, deal with it.
- Getting a game early is neat, but it should not be possible for obvious reasons.
- In today's online service world, going online with the game and announcing to Microsoft you have the game is a stupid thing.
- In 2012, buying something without a receipt is moronic. Let me guess, the op also paid with cash, and not a traceable form of payment like debit/credit? Moronic (or the op is lying).
- The consequences of early copies out in the wild should be obvious. If I received a copy of Halo 4 now I could stream/record the whole thing, leak out major points that might turn people off, or maybe even convince more people to buy the game due to xyz. This is proven by the op coming to gaf to talk about the damn game as if he was the special snowflake with inside info.
- No one cares about the "average gamer" who had no idea and yadi bladi. Everyone is in the same in MS's eyes, regular customers, pirates, gaf members, anyone with the game that shouldn't have it.
- The EULA and TOS you agree to allow them to ban your account for anything, anytime, deal with it.
HollovVpo1nt
Banned
I'm certain that if the OP didn't cry out on a forum like this, Microsoft would have gave him the finger. It's good publicity for MS the way stinkles handled it, even though I think the OP is wrong. Hell, he even said:
Why on Earth would someone resort to this if he was certain he did no wrong?
FatalMuzza
Banned
So the real Q. Hows the game stack up?
MrDanger88
Member
>2012
>not waiting until the official release date to play something online
Yes this is MS' fault
>not waiting until the official release date to play something online
Yes this is MS' fault