ChocolateCupcakes
Member
He doesn't have a receipt. Thats a pretty big problem.
-
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.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Just got my console (and I assume my account) banned from Live for playing Halo 4.
- Thread starter Skel1ingt0n
- Start date
He doesn't have a receipt. Thats a pretty big problem.
What? You are still liable to it if you pressed the I agree button.
Hopefully you get your account back OP but lets be honest, you tried to get away with something shady and it didn't work.
I don't really see how that is relevant. Not reading them doesn't make them void.
Where I live, when dealing with consumers you have to specifically highlight terms of service that are unusual or discriminatory to the consumer. If that didn't happen, they are not part of the contract. Clauses that are very discriminatory to the consumers don't take effect even if they were specifically highlighted.
Terms of service are not a viable blanket-excuse for terrible treatment of consumers.
Ya, that would go a long way towards uninformed users getting unfairly burned like the OP.Why are little stores even getting the game so early? Couldn't MS just only deliver to the 'ma and pa' stores the day before? If they can't be trusted not to break the date, don't even give them the chance.
As someone said above, it's fairly obvious to savvy hardcore gamers that listen to podcasts and read gaming news blogs ever since the launch of the 360 that playing a big game before street date could potentially get your account banned. I've been hearing stuff like that forever, so when I read the OP's post I was hardly surprised.
The problem is that the savvy gamer that I mentioned in the paragraph above is only a small minority of gamers in general fit into that category, so I'm still sympathetic towards the OP. It's not his fault. He bought the game from a brick and mortar store without the knowledge that, even though he did absolutely nothing wrong, Microsoft would banhammer his ass so hard he wouldn't even know what hit him.
I guess OP can only hope that the customer service rep he gets on the phone is having a good day and can help him out.
polyh3dron
Banned
You told Brandt, he told me. I know what happened. Yes? Yes?Stores problem. They sold the game under the table. That is like working for cash and complaining when the IRS asks about the income.
OldJadedGamer
Banned
He has a legit copy that he paid for. How is that shady?
Except there is no proof of purchase. And the OP himself said it was shady. Are you trying to argue just to argue at this point?
polyh3dron
Banned
I don't have receipts for lots of games I own legit copies of.He doesn't have a receipt. Thats a pretty big problem.
Except there is no proof of purchase. And the OP himself said it was shady. Are you trying to argue just to argue at this point?
There's no disagreement on the fact that the copy of the game is legitimate - Microsoft can't differentiate on whether he got a receipt at the till or not (and it doesn't matter, an act of sale doesn't require a receipt).
Randolph Freelander
Member
You told Brandt, he told me. I know what happened. Yes? Yes?
And we have arrived at the point. The bums will always lose.
ChocolateCupcakes
Member
Where I live, when dealing with consumers you have to specifically highlight terms of service that are unusual or discriminatory to the consumer. If that didn't happen, they are not part of the contract. Clauses that are very discriminatory to the consumers don't take effect even if they were specifically highlighted.
Terms of service are not a viable blanket-excuse for terrible treatment of consumers.
And how is this relevant?
polyh3dron
Banned
I find it ridiculous that people are defending someone's console being banned for playing a legit copy of Halo 4 that he paid for. I think it's wrong. And you're the one arguing in circles.Except there is no proof of purchase. And the OP himself said it was shady. Are you trying to argue just to argue at this point?
He doesn't have a receipt. Thats a pretty big problem.
And how is this relevant?
And how is this relevant?
ChocolateCupcakes
Member
I don't have receipts for lots of games I own legit copies of.
And how is this relevant?
If you are trying to dispute something like this you need a proof of purchase. Period.
I NEED SCISSORS
Banned
Between XBL bannings and waiting for Steam games to unlock, street dates are becoming another unwelcome form of DRM. If your game has gone gold, is in stores in some capacity and the buyer acquired it fairly, anything should be fair game even if it's not "official".
It depends what you consider to be legit, it's a legitimate product, it's not a legitimate sale.I find it ridiculous that people are defending someone's console being banned for playing a legit copy of Halo 4 that he paid for. I think it's wrong. And you're the one arguing in circles.
R
Retro_
Unconfirmed Member
Your example is bad and so besides the point it's tiresome to address
his console still plays games he just can't play online with live, as punishment for going online with a game with measures in place to keep people off until they finish implementing the features on it
Cool you got mortal kombat 2 a couple weeks early a decade and a half ago, but it's not comparable at all to what's happening here. (I.E you weren't trying to access content on the game that they were still working on implementing before official release)
If you can't even understand the situation without reducing it to a black and white idea of CONSUMER'S RIGHTS it's not even worth having this discussion with you. Real talk.
Maybe common sense for savvy GAFers, but for the majority of the game buying public, no it's not.
The majority of the game buying public knows Halo 4 comes out on tuesday. They know gamestop's are having midnight releases where they can pick up a copy. Marketting makes sure they know
I don't know who this hypothetical layman you're describing is. Who doesn't know enough about games to know about release dates and how they work, but knows enough to know where to buy games early at small stores without getting a receipt.
Oh right I guess you're describing the average neogaf poster
Who can rectify their situation by contacting Microsoft customer service, who will unban their account after the game is properly released.
Between XBL bannings and waiting for Steam games to unlock, street dates are becoming another unwelcome form of DRM. If you game has gone gold, is in stores in some capacity and you acquired it fairly, anything should be fair game even if it's not "official".
every publisher wants their games to be an "event"
TouchMyBox
Member
Hundreds of stories of people getting banned for playing Halo 4 early, and you go ahead and do it anyways?
Yeah you deserve what you got.
This might be the shittiest post I've seen on GAF in a while.
Bravo.
OldJadedGamer
Banned
There's no disagreement on the fact that the copy of the game is legitimate - Microsoft can't differentiate on whether he got a receipt at the till or not (and it doesn't matter, an act of sale doesn't require a receipt).
And what store was this purchased at again?
If you are trying to dispute something like this you need a proof of purchase. Period.
While that is true for Microsoft's process of unbanning you from Xbox Live, this isn't necessarily relevant in a suit of law and could theoretically land the company in hot water in some jurisdictions.
But I'm mainly arguing that Microsoft is treating its customers terribly by acting this way and that terms of service are no excuse or reasonable justification for terrible policies.
dudeWhile that is true for Microsoft's process of unbanning you from Xbox Live, this isn't necessarily relevant in a suit of law and could theoretically land the company in hot water in some jurisdictions.
But I'm mainly arguing that Microsoft is treating its customers terribly by acting this way, and terms of service are no excuse or reasonable justification for terrible policies.
stop whining.
Retailer because they broke their contract/agreement with the distributor.
Pretty easy
I personally agree. The people saying that it's Microsoft's fault or the OP's fault I do not agree with.
ChocolateCupcakes
Member
While that is true for Microsoft's process of unbanning you from Xbox Live, this isn't necessarily relevant in a suit of law and could theoretically land the company in hot water in some jurisdictions.
But I'm mainly arguing that Microsoft is treating its customers terribly by acting this way and that terms of service are no excuse or reasonable justification for terrible policies.
Good thing I'm only talking about Microsoft then, huh.
I'm not saying Microsoft is 100% right, but OP isn't entirely a victim.
OldJadedGamer
Banned
I personally agree. The people saying that it's Microsoft's fault or the OP's fault I do not agree with.
It is the fault of the store. If it was a legit purchase then there would be no need to hide the store name. He is hiding it because he knows it wasn't a legit purchase.
I find it ridiculous that people are defending someone's console being banned for playing a legit copy of Halo 4 that he paid for. I think it's wrong. And you're the one arguing in circles.
It's not HIS copy. There is no transaction. The store still owns it. Just because you hand money to someone in a retail store doesn't mean you own it. It needs to be put in the system to handle inventory and balance books. Also, what's to stop the associate from pocketing the money and claiming you stole it?
Unless you use cash, every transaction has a history that can be tracked from either the business or your credit card company. If you use cash, you should hang onto the receipt until you're absolutely sure you're happy with the product.
But this is going off topic a bit. Microsoft is still stupid banning non-pirated copies.
Edit: And I'm not blaming him at all. The blame is fully on the store for the sale, and the ban is fully the fault of Microsoft.
Where I live, when dealing with consumers you have to specifically highlight terms of service that are unusual or discriminatory to the consumer. If that didn't happen, they are not part of the contract. Clauses that are very discriminatory to the consumers don't take effect even if they were specifically highlighted.
Terms of service are not a viable blanket-excuse for terrible treatment of consumers.
You admitted yourself earlier that MS was completely within its right to ban a user from the Xbox Live service if a user broke a rule like this, so now I'm not sure if you are arguing that the rule is unusual or discriminatory. I don't see how it is either of those things, but it's not really the point.
And I'm aware that terms of service aren't a full proof barrier of protection for a company, but they are definitely more water tight than 'I'm not responsible because I'm not internet savvy'. The guy's initial point was that the end user isn't responsible at all because he can just claim ignorance when clearly that isn't the case. It's not Microsoft's responsible to go through and ensure every user is aware of every condition of using the service, that's what the T&Cs and recent announcements are for. Whether the T&Cs hold up is another thing, but I can't really see a reason why they wouldn't. Agreeing to use Xbox Live comes with the agreement that you won't play illegitimately sold copies of the game before their release date, I don't really see what grounds you'd have to dispute that.
CambriaRising
Member
Good thing I'm only talking about Microsoft then, huh.
I'm not saying Microsoft is 100% right, but OP isn't entirely a victim.
Bullshit. He purchased a product which has a direct revenue stream back to MS, and they punished him for playing it. In no way is the OP in the wrong.
It's not HIS copy. There is no transaction. The store still owns it. Just because you hand money to someone in a retail store doesn't mean you own it. It needs to be put in the system to handle inventory and balance books. Also, what's to stop the associate from pocketing the money and claiming you stole it?
Unless you use cash, every transaction has a history that can be tracked from either the business or your credit card company. If you use cash, you should hang onto the receipt until you're absolutely sure you're happy with the product.
But this is going off topic a bit. Microsoft is still stupid banning non-pirated copies.
Another bullshit post. It IS his copy. Possession is nine tenths and all that jazz.
I personally agree. The people saying that it's Microsoft's fault or the OP's fault I do not agree with.
People are blaming Microsoft for banning the op. Microsoft is justified in taking actions to ensure Halo 4 doesn't get out early, but taking action against gamers that bought a legitimate copy is not justified. Blocking access to the Halo 4 multiplayer until release I would consider reasonable.
Agreeing to use Xbox Live comes with the agreement that you won't play illegitimately sold copies of the game before their release date, I don't really see what grounds you'd have to dispute that.
While I don't think such a clause is even part of the ToS, no way would this hold up (hidden in the ToS) in any way before a court over here. But yes, they can probably terminate his Xbox Live access for any reason, Microsoft is not required to allow anyone in - they just shouldn't for such reasons, and there really is no obligation for the consumer to stay informed about a games marketing plan.
Except the copy in question wasn't even legally bought - the store never rang it up and there's no receipt. As far as all the systems are concerned, that copy is still supposed to be in a box with an unbroken orange seal.
Exactly, so this is why you should punish any guy for going into the shop seeing Halo 4 on the shelf and buying it. The guy in question may have not even knew about the street date.
So much for consumer rights.
As far as you know Microsoft could also be banning a 14 year old kid somewhere else, oww the pain they caused.
CitizenCope
Member
I've played all the Halos and I've been on GAF for 6 years. I would never put a Halo game in my 360 before release day.
Indeed, he was implicit.It is the fault of the store. If it was a legit purchase then there would be no need to hide the store name. He is hiding it because he knows it wasn't a legit purchase.
People are arguing for the 'average consumer', and I don't believe they even exist in this example. It's true someone might not know the release date of Halo 4, they might use a small store as their normal gaming shop. They go there, they see Halo 4 behind the counter, they ask for it. The sales person gets the game, ready to sell it. At that point, the fault lies on the shop exclusively, the consumer knows, and has no reason to know, anything is wrong. At the point the sales person says "I can't give you a receipt, I'll have to ring it up on Tuesday", if the consumer agrees, they no longer have any claim to being 'innocent'.
ChocolateCupcakes
Member
Bullshit. He purchased a product which has a direct revenue stream back to MS, and they punished him for playing it. In no way is the OP in the wrong.
Its a product that wasn't officially released yet. OP was smart enough to go to a mom and pop store purchase a copy under the table but he messed up and played online.
CambriaRising
Member
Its a product that wasn't officially released yet. OP was smart enough to go to a mom and pop store purchase a copy under the table but he messed up and played online.
It was officially released in that store, because he bought a copy.
ChocolateCupcakes
Member
It was officially released in that store, because he bought a copy.
So official they didn't give him a receipt.
Tallshortman
Member
Man pretty dumb to buy without a receipt of a game that wasn't released yet. It's really tempting your luck. You should always get a receipt, especially for situations like this where it could come in handy.
I NEED SCISSORS
Banned
It's not HIS copy. There is no transaction. The store still owns it. Just because you hand money to someone in a retail store doesn't mean you own it. It needs to be put in the system to handle inventory and balance books. Also, what's to stop the associate from pocketing the money and claiming you stole it?
Unless you use cash, every transaction has a history that can be tracked from either the business or your credit card company. If you use cash, you should hang onto the receipt until you're absolutely sure you're happy with the product.
But this is going off topic a bit. Microsoft is still stupid banning non-pirated copies.
Edit: And I'm not blaming him at all. The blame is fully on the store for the sale, and the ban is fully the fault of Microsoft.
Oh dear...
robertlebrone
Member
Indeed, he was implicit.
People are arguing for the 'average consumer', and I don't believe they even exist in this example. It's true someone might not know the release date of Halo 4, they might use a small store as their normal gaming shop. They go there, they see Halo 4 behind the counter, they ask for it. The sales person gets the game, ready to sell it. At that point, the fault lies on the shop exclusively, the consumer knows, and has no reason to know, anything is wrong. At the point the sales person says "I can't give you a receipt, I'll have to ring it up on Tuesday", if the consumer agrees, they no longer have any claim to being 'innocent'.
Exactly. I'm not "buying" a damn thing if I don't get a receipt. That's a huge red flag, there is no proof of purchase. Worst case scenario what's to stop the store from saying the game was stolen if shit hits the fan on their side?
CambriaRising
Member
So official they didn't give him a receipt.
A receipt is proof of the purchase, but it does not define ownership.
yeah Fuck that company that just spent over $100 million on a video game I really appreciate. fuck the system man.
Words can't describe your stupidity.
Indeed, he was implicit.
People are arguing for the 'average consumer', and I don't believe they even exist in this example. It's true someone might not know the release date of Halo 4, they might use a small store as their normal gaming shop. They go there, they see Halo 4 behind the counter, they ask for it. The sales person gets the game, ready to sell it. At that point, the fault lies on the shop exclusively, the consumer knows, and has no reason to know, anything is wrong. At the point the sales person says "I can't give you a receipt, I'll have to ring it up on Tuesday", if the consumer agrees, they no longer have any claim to being 'innocent'.
Let's say the customer purchases it at a smaller shop that doesn't have those systems. It appears Microsoft is banning Halo 4 players indiscriminately other than reviewers. I don't think the burden should be on the consumer to send proof that they purchased the game legally to continue to use their Xbox Live subscription.
ChocolateCupcakes
Member
A receipt is proof of the purchase, but it does not define ownership.
And a proof of purchase is usually needed to dispute a claim like this.
And I never said he didn't own it.
So if I pirate a game, it's my copy, right? Might be a stupid analogy, but so is saying "possession is nine-tenths of the law".Another bullshit post. It IS his copy. Possession is nine tenths and all that jazz.
You walk into Target and take a desk to the counter. The clerk says it's $60. You hand him $60 and walk out with no receipt or transaction taking place. You have stolen that item from the business's perspective. Now, later the facts could come out and you could be cleared of everything, but you technically have stolen that item. You have no proof you own it. The store's system still says it has that item in it's system.
How can you argue that? Again, for like the tenth time, I am not blaming the OP or consumer in my scenario.
Oh dear...
What? What's to stop the associate from pocketing the money and just sending you on your way? At that moment, you do not own that item. Clear things up (somehow with cameras/witness reports/etc) and whatever happens, happens. You still have no receipt and the company has no transaction, thus making proving ownership difficult.
What systems? Tills? Is this a Victorian sweet shop?Let's say the customer purchases it at a smaller shop that doesn't have those systems. It appears Microsoft is banning Halo 4 players indiscriminately other than reviewers. I don't think the burden should be on the consumer to send proof that they purchased the game legally to continue to use their Xbox Live subscription.
But lets be honest, you tried to get away with something shady and it didn't work.
What? No he didn't. Stop accusing people of bullshit like this. He bought the game because the shop sold it to him early, and truth be told, you'd probably do the same thing if you could.
Hate dumb, accusatory posts like this.
Whatever, Frank got his account unbanned so it doesn't even matter.
MaritalWheat
Member
I don't get how people here are throwing blame between Microsoft and the OP--it's the store's fault. MS has every right to ban an account that seems suspect (and I imagine playing fucking Halo 4 early raises a big red flag), and the dude has every right to buy something he sees on shelves. The only person who broke a contract here was the store, which both parties can reasonably blame for inconvenience and wasted resources (time, money, etc.).
Microsoft deserve no blame unless they don't rectify things in a timely manner once the situation is clarified with them; but these things take some time, which the OP has only the store to blame for (unless, of course, he went and asked them for an early copy or something).
Microsoft deserve no blame unless they don't rectify things in a timely manner once the situation is clarified with them; but these things take some time, which the OP has only the store to blame for (unless, of course, he went and asked them for an early copy or something).
OldJadedGamer
Banned
It was officially released in that store, because he bought a copy.
So official they didn't even ring it up at the cash register.
I don't get how people here are throwing blame between Microsoft and the OP--it's the store's fault. MS has every right to ban an account that seems suspect (and I imagine playing fucking Halo 4 early raises a big red flag), and the dude has every right to buy something he sees on shelves. The only person who broke a contract here was the store, which both parties can reasonably blame for inconvenience and wasted resources (time, money, etc.).
Microsoft deserve no blame unless they don't rectify things in a timely manner once the situation is clarified with them; but these things take some time, which the OP has only the store to blame for (unless, of course, he went and asked them for an early copy or something).
A post with perfect logic.
So, uh, guys, what happens if my Halo 4 Console gets here early from Amazon (I regularly get stuff from Amazon faster than they say)? Will I get in trouble if I hook it up? It'd be a real bummer for my replacement Xbox to get banned or something.
Alright, that makes a bit of sense. I can see how someone would have the right to sue or whatnot if someone breaks a contract with them.
There are contracts around the sales of product that must be adhered to.
I wrote a thing about street dates last year
very Australian specific but a bit of it flows to the USA
http://www.kotaku.com.au/2011/10/why-street-date-breaks-are-bad-for-the-games-industry-as-a-whole/
Alright, that makes a bit of sense. I can see how someone would have the right to sue or whatnot if someone breaks a contract with them.
relax. I will take care of it. Your copy is not legitimate - the store efffed up. But you will be unbanned soon.
I wanna know more about this: How can you tell based on packaging? Is the disc printed differently from your/343's print-run or what?
Curious how OP got burned on a "non-legit" copy more than him breaking street date.
I don't get how people here are throwing blame between Microsoft and the OP--it's the store's fault. MS has every right to ban an account that seems suspect (and I imagine playing fucking Halo 4 early raises a big red flag), and the dude has every right to buy something he sees on shelves. The only person who broke a contract here was the store, which both parties can reasonably blame for inconvenience and wasted resources (time, money, etc.).
Microsoft deserve no blame unless they don't rectify things in a timely manner once the situation is clarified with them; but these things take some time, which the OP has only the store to blame for (unless, of course, he went and asked them for an early copy or something).
Bingo.
I wanna know more about this: How can you tell based on packaging? Is the disc printed differently from your/343's print-run or what?
Curious how OP got burned on a "non-legit" copy more than him breaking street date.
I believe he was referring to it being sold before the release date, thereby breaking the store's contract with Microsoft and hence making the sale 'illegitimate'. I doubt he meant it was illegitimate in the pirated/fake copy type way.
ChocolateCupcakes
Member
What? No he didn't. Stop accusing people of bullshit like this. He bought the game because the shop sold it to him early, and truth be told, you'd probably do the same thing if you could.
Hate dumb, accusatory posts like this.
Whatever, Frank got his account unbanned so it doesn't even matter.
Yeah, if a shop told me they would give me a game but they couldn't ring it up until release date I would call it shady.
And fuck yeah I probably would but I would smart enough not to sign into my account.
I don't get how people here are throwing blame between Microsoft and the OP--it's the store's fault. MS has every right to ban an account that seems suspect (and I imagine playing fucking Halo 4 early raises a big red flag), and the dude has every right to buy something he sees on shelves. The only person who broke a contract here was the store, which both parties can reasonably blame for inconvenience and wasted resources (time, money, etc.).
Microsoft deserve no blame unless they don't rectify things in a timely manner once the situation is clarified with them; but these things take some time, which the OP has only the store to blame for (unless, of course, he went and asked them for an early copy or something).
I agree.