But that might not be the reason for the ban. Here is a site full of other possible reasons for the ban and there is a possibility that playing Halo 4 early just got the OP noticed.
There is just too many unknowns related to this case.
-
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
But that might not be the reason for the ban. Here is a site full of other possible reasons for the ban and there is a possibility that playing Halo 4 early just got the OP noticed.
There is just too many unknowns related to this case.
Metalmurphy
Member
Doesn't fucking matter, it's a genuine copy. Really! Why are you taking MS side by posting possible opposite situations?
onlyindreams
Banned
haha omg
I didn't miss it at all, I read it and then dismissed it because what you're saying your stance is doesn't add up when I read your posts on the issue.
There's a point me and others are making which you seem to be ignoring too - if the disc is a genuine Xbox 360 Halo 4 disc then the OP's game is not illegitimate.
onlyindreams
Banned
Well no, all those cases disclose their ban reason so why the secrecy from Frankie/MS here when the OP wants to know?
Say you had been playing a legitimate copy of GOW3 and someone told MS that you had stolen it. Do you think they should ban you until you prove you haven't?
biggersmaller
Banned
From a customer service, PR, and universal understanding of decency - I see no reasonable to defence of MS. The technicalities people offer fly in the face of common sense.
It really is that simple. They cannot tell whether he stole it from a store, it fell off the back of a lorry, or was gifted to him by his fairy godmother. If it is a disc pressed by MS then they have no grounds to ban IMO.
If someone did obtain it illegally, then you should be prosecuting if you clearly have proof.
Thousands of posts and still going in circles, good lord.
Ultimately at the end of the day whether or not you agree with it, legal or not legal, right or wrong - Microsoft from their standpoint had no reason to unban him, because he is willfully (unless I've missed an update?) protecting the store that supposedly sold him the copy early, because he knows that they violated an agreement with Microsoft to provide him that copy. I'd still be fascinated to know if these retail/distribution agreements are legal in nature or not, because if they're actual legal agreements this becomes a whole different ballgame. But even assuming they're not, and regardless of how you feel about street dates, this retailer had an agreement (legal or otherwise) with Microsoft to not sell this copy before a certain date, and they did. So someone in legal or otherwise at Microsoft sees this guy actively preventing them from taking disciplinary/legal/financial/whatever action with the retailer who violated their agreement with them, why one earth would they unban him? This isn't as black or white as an instance of "punishing" someone for the store's error, because most people wouldn't be actively protecting the store's "error."
I also think people are getting off-track a bit with the "legitimacy" angle here; obviously it's a retail copy, and I don't think anyone here thinks the OP actually stole the copy or anything illegal like that. But legal does NOT equal legitimate here; we're talking about a closed network run by a company, just because it is a retail disc does not make it "legitimate" in their eyes. I'm not disagreeing with that point, but I think hinging the argument around that point is irrelevant.
Ultimately at the end of the day whether or not you agree with it, legal or not legal, right or wrong - Microsoft from their standpoint had no reason to unban him, because he is willfully (unless I've missed an update?) protecting the store that supposedly sold him the copy early, because he knows that they violated an agreement with Microsoft to provide him that copy. I'd still be fascinated to know if these retail/distribution agreements are legal in nature or not, because if they're actual legal agreements this becomes a whole different ballgame. But even assuming they're not, and regardless of how you feel about street dates, this retailer had an agreement (legal or otherwise) with Microsoft to not sell this copy before a certain date, and they did. So someone in legal or otherwise at Microsoft sees this guy actively preventing them from taking disciplinary/legal/financial/whatever action with the retailer who violated their agreement with them, why one earth would they unban him? This isn't as black or white as an instance of "punishing" someone for the store's error, because most people wouldn't be actively protecting the store's "error."
I also think people are getting off-track a bit with the "legitimacy" angle here; obviously it's a retail copy, and I don't think anyone here thinks the OP actually stole the copy or anything illegal like that. But legal does NOT equal legitimate here; we're talking about a closed network run by a company, just because it is a retail disc does not make it "legitimate" in their eyes. I'm not disagreeing with that point, but I think hinging the argument around that point is irrelevant.
polyh3dron
Banned
Metal I thought you were done in here.
Metalmurphy
Member
It adds up completely, I came to this thread and there were people taking one side, and claiming it was the only possible one. I said it wasn't, posted examples of why it wasn't. That's not me taking sides.
How am I ignoring it? I've responded to it like a 5 different times. Here it is once more:
The game isn't, how he obtained it was, maybe not by him, but by someone. That's why there was an investigation, that's why some people got unbanned, but the OP didn't.
I am with you.
Not the first time someone says this, but how can you say that for sure? Imagine a store reported copies stolen, and the OP logged on XBL with IPs from the same area. And afterwards, he forges a receipt to hide said store. If it was my network service, I'd ban him too. Once again, another example showing why you shouldn't jump into conclusions. There was an investigation, or more then one apparently, and it ended up with the OP not getting unbanned, even though other people were. You guys have no idea what conclusions MS took from that and ether the not removing the ban was the right thing to do or not.
I couldn't care less about the OP's story, especially after he bought another 360.
What I do care about is the fact that MS actually DID ban early buyers of legitimate retail copies, even though they had no idea if these people were playing legal copies or pirated ones!
And to add insult to injury, they demanded proof of a legitimate purchase from these people. Otherwise they would stay banned.
Treating your customers like that is wrong on so many levels. They really shouldn't trifle with their customers trust like that.
Ok. That's certainly reasonable. The policy is most definitely problematic, and I'd agree that the ban first approach is not ideal. I think the pre-release element of the whole thing tips the scales for me, though. If they were banning people post-release on this kind of suspicion, I'd never buy their products again.
robotzombie
Member
Under your scenario, the only issue here is someone playing early. Microsoft has no evidence whatsoever of the copy being pirated. Again, release dates have nothing to do with consumers, they are not a law, rule, or anything that a consumer has to follow. So the only evidence Microsoft is based on a date that has no bearing on the end user and that is supposed to be enough to ban a person (calling them guilty) and then forcing them to prove their innocence?
If that is the case, Microsoft could then hear about a game being stolen off of a truck in a certain city and then ban everyone in that city that plays that game online until they send a receipt? So now as a consumer we are forced to keep our receipts forever in case Microsoft deems us a target to prove our innocence for whatever reason they wish?
polyh3dron
Banned
omg stop making sense
That's a fair point that I hadn't really considered. Playing early certainly isn't reasonable suspicion for a full-console permaban.
Zaraki_Kenpachi
Member
Are you saying you keep receipts for everything? I literally have zero at my house. I throw them out on my way home or at home once I get there. I would never just hold a receipt, just because.
jadedm17
Member
I disagree : He's not some kid or naive parent, he's a grown adult with a full understanding of what he was doing, he's hardly innocent.
This type of nonsense of consumers doing (or trying to) do things they know the shouldn't then claiming innocence after is bullshit. I've been on both sides and know what I'm getting into. He showed his collection of Halo games, I'm going on the assumption he knew the consequences before putting the disc in (and as I understand playing online multiplayer).
Most anything over $20, and 100% of things I'm playing before I should be [and know this]. Buy a steel filing cabinet and stay prepared. I have a plastic drawer in my closet with every paystub and reciept I've gotten in the last seven years.
Because just like OP, I would like to know the reason the ban. Is it really just playing game early or something other?
onlyindreams
Banned
Uno Venova
Banned
Was it said anywhere that people would get banned for playing online early? I thought Major said the opposite.
No, I do not. That said, having purchased and played copies early, I did keep my receipt in those situations. You'd be right to say, though, that had I not been aware I was buying a copy pre-release, known to keep my receipt and stay offline, I'd be screwed. Unfairly, to boot. Fair point.
That shouldn't matter - whether the OP discloses the store or not is up to him. It isn't grounds to ban him, because he still has a real copy of Halo 4 that isn't pirated. That is the only thing that should matter. Street dates or not, that should have no bearing on the OP as a customer. Unless he pirated the game, he should be unbanned - especially considering the photos of him owning the entire Halo series of games (amongst other games) - seems clear to me that it's very unlikely to be a pirated copy, and if it isn't, he shouldn't be banned for playing it.
onlyindreams
Banned
Yeah they did say the opposite. They do with every major release, really. Only pirated copies would get detected and banned.
and obviously thats not the case
Metalmurphy
Member
Not saying you are wrong, I honestly have no idea here, but are you sure they don't have that covered in the EULA?
I find it hard to believe MS bans people playing early copies at will without having it covered in some user agreement.
Zaraki_Kenpachi
Member
Maybe some do but I definitely don't. I make sure I open the game and the disk isn't cracked through some odd occurrence and if it's fine then I throw away the receipt, it serves no more purpose for me.
robotzombie
Member
You really don't get this do you? There IS NO GUILT OR INNOCENCE ASSOCIATED WITH THE END CUSTOMER IN REGARDS TO RELEASE DATES. It doesn't matter in the least bit that he knew or didn't know what the store was doing. Breaking street dates is not against the law, it is a personal agreement between the store and the supplier, if they break that agreement it is their responsibility, not the person who purchased the item.
What the hell did you consider then? Its literally what this thread is about.
I suppose I was distracted by the OP's conduct post-ban, and the comments by Stinkles and those that have been in contact with MS employees. Some parties are saying that there is additional evidence that he acquired the copy illegitimately, and he has been unable to clear the air to their satisfaction. Whether that is from an inability to do so, or the fact that MS requires an inordinate amount of proof/are willfully disregarding his evidence to the contrary, I don't know. The ban is certainly unreasonable on the basis of playing the game early. Whether or not MS's conduct post-ban is reprehensible is what I'm still trying to discern.
onlyindreams
Banned
Not to mention the fact that street dates are so fucking pointless and arbitrary to the consumer that it's super bizarre to defend them or think they matter at all.
robotzombie
Member
Not saying you are wrong, I honestly have no idea here, but are you sure they don't have that covered in the EULA?
I find it hard to believe MS bans people playing early copies at will without having it covered in some user agreement.
They are not banning people for that reason though, they are banning people for piracy and forcing them to prove otherwise. People who work for Microsoft itself have stated that they do not punish people who play retail copies early.
The only nonsense is you insinuating that the OP getting a game before release is grounds for him to be banned even if it's a legitimate disc. It isn't. There is no law that states stores cannot sell the game early. Therefore there is nothing illegal about this unless the disc was pirated.
Zaraki_Kenpachi
Member
Someone should really tweet major nelson about whether you can be banned for a game you bought before the street date for an updated answer.
polyh3dron
Banned
just stop using the word "legitimate" because it will start up that whole what is/isn't legitimate argument again. use the word "genuine" instead.
polyh3dron
Banned
why are you?
Z_Y
Member
Show me one person...just one...who was banned from Xbox Live for playing a stolen game. Just one.
If the disc is real, the ban is unjustified, unless MS have undeniable proof that it's a stolen copy. Innocent until proven guilty.
Foxy Fox 39
Banned
They certainly matter from the publisher and retail sides. A release date creates an even field for stores selling the copy (why pre-order at Gamestop when Target is just selling the game a week early), it gives a specific amount of time for stores to be shipped their copies, and so on. It may seem arbitrary to you, however street dates are used for several mediums and are a part of the reality of shipping/selling products. That's why retailers enter a contractual agreement to not sell the products before the street date (with fines that can occur when broken).
I don't think the OP should've been banned as this is the agreement made with the store, however showing an unaltered proof of purchase is a common business practice and not out of the ordinary to ask for. Halo 4 was being torrented three weeks prior to release, which is why MS instituted the online bans pre-release in the first place while they tried to track down the leak.
The OP says he provided proof of purchase. A trusted source of another user said that it altered and not deemed acceptable. There is a discrepancy in the story between the two parts that no one here is liekly ever going to know the truth about, which makes it kind of pointless debating.
biggersmaller
Banned
Customer service 101: a publicly vocal repeat customer who made a minor "mistake" should be able to get their account back. Whether the customer is lying or not, it's just good PR.
Idiots.
polyh3dron
Banned
Foxy Fox 39
Banned
Well that's because they're insane.
edit: I bolded and underlined the other important parts for people.
Uno Venova
Banned
Fuck fuck fuck, what do we do now? Do we now accuse op of having a early copy but pirating it also for the hell of it?
Same here, after doing doing the refurb shuffle 3 times and then buying a arcade unit years ago, I finally said screw it and jumped over to ps3. It's been like 4 years since I've had a Xbox and I don't miss it. I don't worry about buying online access and I don't worry about bans. Does Sony even ban consoles, I've never heard of one happening.
3rdamention
Member
I honestly believe the Consumer/Customer in this case. I must say I am VERY disappointed with Microsoft.
This guy gave a copy of the receipt, played a legitimate version of the game, and Microsoft still banned him.
As a school teacher, I have a LOT of students who are gamers. We love talking about games, and they think it's cool that their teacher is a gamer. This is a story/scenario that we have discussed and basically scares my students. They didn't know that Microsoft could ban consoles/accounts, or even that they would in a situation like this. It has also provided fodder for their fan boy system wars they have when we discuss games.
I would like to thank the OP and Microsoft for providing us with an great scenario that we have since used as a persuasive class debate. I have summarized the story, changed the names, and I have students take a side, the Consumer or the Corporation. Honestly, my students hate being the corporation because they cannot wrap their heads around why they would ban the consumer for playing a game early. I have given them reasons, but it still comes to the bottom line "If the game is real, and they bought it from a real store, then why are they banned for simply playing it early?"
They have a very hard time arguing that "Yes, we should ban the customer for playing this game early!" I think this whole ordeal is simply embarrassing for Microsoft and just overall very disappointing.
Something else I would like to add, I waltzed into Meijer one day and saw they had Killzone 2 on the shelf for sale a FULL TWO WEEKS EARLY to the day. I picked that bad boy up and that evening was playing with the actual developers of the game online. We had a great time, talked about the game, strategies, etc. They never once asked me where I got the game, how I got the game, or anything. They did ask "Where are you from?" I told them and we kept playing. That was a lot of fun! Also, a totally different attitude towards me playing the game early.
This guy gave a copy of the receipt, played a legitimate version of the game, and Microsoft still banned him.
As a school teacher, I have a LOT of students who are gamers. We love talking about games, and they think it's cool that their teacher is a gamer. This is a story/scenario that we have discussed and basically scares my students. They didn't know that Microsoft could ban consoles/accounts, or even that they would in a situation like this. It has also provided fodder for their fan boy system wars they have when we discuss games.
I would like to thank the OP and Microsoft for providing us with an great scenario that we have since used as a persuasive class debate. I have summarized the story, changed the names, and I have students take a side, the Consumer or the Corporation. Honestly, my students hate being the corporation because they cannot wrap their heads around why they would ban the consumer for playing a game early. I have given them reasons, but it still comes to the bottom line "If the game is real, and they bought it from a real store, then why are they banned for simply playing it early?"
They have a very hard time arguing that "Yes, we should ban the customer for playing this game early!" I think this whole ordeal is simply embarrassing for Microsoft and just overall very disappointing.
Something else I would like to add, I waltzed into Meijer one day and saw they had Killzone 2 on the shelf for sale a FULL TWO WEEKS EARLY to the day. I picked that bad boy up and that evening was playing with the actual developers of the game online. We had a great time, talked about the game, strategies, etc. They never once asked me where I got the game, how I got the game, or anything. They did ask "Where are you from?" I told them and we kept playing. That was a lot of fun! Also, a totally different attitude towards me playing the game early.
Mackenzie 92
Member
Except he didn't purchase it, he admits that "they didn't ring it up" and his card wasn't even charged and of course we all know, he didn't have a receipt when he walked out of the store with the game.
He wasn't banned for simply playing it early, he was banned based on suspicion of piracy, he was unable to prove that it was legit, meaning he was authorized to use the copyrighted material. Part of the reason he was unable to prove it is because he wanted to protect the person or party who knowingly sold the game early, based on the fact that the game couldn't even be rung up in the system. Mom and pop shops generally don't even have systems like that.
If he walked into the store, paid for his game and then went home and got banned unknowingly, I'd have a problem with it. But again, that's not what happened here and he has a history of this sort of thing and was not forthcoming with information that could have helped him fight the ban.
That's assuming everything that he says is true, which I still don't believe.
I've said it before, but LIVE is a closed subscription based service that you pay for the privilege to use. It's not a given right. I don't agree with him losing his access to previously purchased content, but I have that same problem with Steam and Origin as well.
You guys are acting like MS charged him with a crime and that he deserves the right to a trial by a jury of his peers. It's their service, they can do what they want. His game is functional, his console is functional, (and he traded it in without disclosing its banned state, so he's as much as an asshole as MS is) he just lost the privilege to use LIVE due to his own actions.
To be fair, Sony didn't have a problem with piracy at that time, whereas MS has had severe problems since the beginning. And I'm you sure you also paid for the game and walked out of the store with a receipt.
He wasn't banned for simply playing it early, he was banned based on suspicion of piracy, he was unable to prove that it was legit, meaning he was authorized to use the copyrighted material. Part of the reason he was unable to prove it is because he wanted to protect the person or party who knowingly sold the game early, based on the fact that the game couldn't even be rung up in the system. Mom and pop shops generally don't even have systems like that.
If he walked into the store, paid for his game and then went home and got banned unknowingly, I'd have a problem with it. But again, that's not what happened here and he has a history of this sort of thing and was not forthcoming with information that could have helped him fight the ban.
That's assuming everything that he says is true, which I still don't believe.
I've said it before, but LIVE is a closed subscription based service that you pay for the privilege to use. It's not a given right. I don't agree with him losing his access to previously purchased content, but I have that same problem with Steam and Origin as well.
You guys are acting like MS charged him with a crime and that he deserves the right to a trial by a jury of his peers. It's their service, they can do what they want. His game is functional, his console is functional, (and he traded it in without disclosing its banned state, so he's as much as an asshole as MS is) he just lost the privilege to use LIVE due to his own actions.
To be fair, Sony didn't have a problem with piracy at that time, whereas MS has had severe problems since the beginning. And I'm you sure you also paid for the game and walked out of the store with a receipt.
3rdamention
Member
Does the Microsoft TOS say that they will ban you for playing a game early UNTIL you provide which store sold it to you?
Just curious, cause that sounds more like the case here.
Just curious, cause that sounds more like the case here.
Mackenzie 92
Member
No idea, but I'd guess it's at their discretion. They seem to be more concerned with the retailers.