I thought Halo was out fighting aliens, not posting on GAF.
-
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
I thought Halo was out fighting aliens, not posting on GAF.
TheKaeptain
Banned
Hahahahahahahaha
This is the most logical bit in the thread yet, outside of that Maritalwheat post.
element
Member
In MS eyes right now, if you have Halo 4 and aren't on the whitelist of approved users, you got it through improper means.
Like I said above stores that have copies aren't telling people they can buy it and most fans aren't going into stores asking to buy it (as the games shouldn't be displayed). So you either have a store telling a consumer "Hey! You like Halo? I can sell it to you now! Don't tell anyone!" or consumer asking "You got Halo? I want it now." The store should have never sold the game in the first place.
I'm curious how the OP was aware the store even had copies.
I seriously doubt they'd permaban a user like this if they could tell he was using a legitimate copy.
Banning a paying customer is bad business. The fact that they think its their only recourse is surprising. Their inability to whitelist gamer tags for unreleased games is dumb. Whether they are within their rights isn't very interesting.
Banning paying customers because your retailer screwed up winds up hurting you.
This does not make sense to me.
If he bought the game what difference does it make if it was a week or a day earlier? MS is still going to get their money either way so I don't get how this could "cost people their jobs" on the developer side...
Gemüsepizza
Member
So many things wrong in this post. No, it's not a "totally fair assumption". Microsoft does know that there are stores who sell games early, and that customers do not necessarily know that this isn't allowed due to some contract. And wtf at your drugs comparison...
-Pyromaniac-
Member
Guy pays money for game he bought at store. Guy gets punished for it.
People can make all the excuses they want for whoever "they're just doing their jobzz!!". But I'm sorry. When shit aint right shit aint right knamsayin.
People can make all the excuses they want for whoever "they're just doing their jobzz!!". But I'm sorry. When shit aint right shit aint right knamsayin.
Mackenzie 92
Member
Dude could've just played it offline with no problem, but he just had to go online and wag his dick around.
Shady that he has no receipt as well.
Shady that he has no receipt as well.
Don't worry, it's been fixed. All is well.
Then where do you propose he obtained it from? You don't buy his "store gave it to me early" story?
blitzcloud
Banned
I'm in the anti-consumer side of this I guess. If you know they are selling it to you by breaking the street date... you're doing it knowing you're clean like one of those who walk away from trials unscathed as they know what tricks will and will not give them problems.
Still, I think you should be unbanned, which is what's going to happen/happened apparently.
Still, I think you should be unbanned, which is what's going to happen/happened apparently.
OldJadedGamer
Banned
Store shouldn't have sold it early. Screws customer. Wait... what was the name of the store again?
R
Retro_
Unconfirmed Member
He uploads it to the internet for a bunch of other people to play a week early without paying
They would if they don't want people on the service as they're still working on it, which seems to be the case here and in other cases like it(WWE example posted on previous page)
Anything less wouldn't be an effective deterrent
HarryDemeanor
Member
I think whats more telling in all of this is ms total lack of being able to spot a hacked machine online. Ive seen a few peoples lists of late and they must be running a firmware yet they dont get banned. They cant see that the op is running a legit game on a legit console firmware, i find that pretty shocking tbh.
element
Member
The actual sale isn't the impact. It is the possible effect of it.
What if a game is sold early. The person that gets it leaks it online. Sales lost. There is also the chance of word of mouth effect. That person could make statements about the game that could also hurt sales.
It is a statement why street dates are important to respect, both on the retailer and consumer side.
Jawmuncher
Member
It's been a toss up.
Plenty of people Played Gears 2, Halo 3 and other shit early with no repruccusions.
MS themselves even said in the past something along the lines of "If the copy of the game is legitimate then you won't be banned for playing early".
Though something seems to have gotten fucked on their side, that they can't differentiate anymore.
And you need the name of the store why?
A Twisty Fluken
Member
Show your work.
I'm a dev too, but I just can't see the rational of targeting the consumer in something like this. Telling someone who walked into a store and purchased a copy early, knowingly or otherwise, that they screwed up is backwards. If someone went out and bought a copy of my game early and broke a ship date doing it, the only thing I'd have to say is thanks for being a fan and I hope you enjoy it. If it's important to the publisher that a game doesn't leak early, the onus is on us to make sure that doesn't happen. There's no reason a game needs to be sitting in a sealed box in the back room of a retailer weeks before it launches; manage your distribution better.
Anyway, the vast majority of piracy leaks come from the manufacturing plants or on the way to retail stores, not from stores breaking street dates. Those are also the leaks that are the most harmful, as the earlier it is from the release date the worse it is in terms of piracy and affected sales.
When dates or exclusives get screwed up it can have repercussions that the public is never aware of, even to the point of voiding contracts. For example, ask a PR person if they've ever lost a magazine cover story due to a leak; you'll get an entertaining range of responses. It doesn't even matter if the leaked info is positive or negative, to the press it becomes old news and not worth their time anymore. Look up the stupidity of Techcrunch's article on Lyft for a good example.
So let's say a game leaks out a few weeks early and people end up posting their impressions online. Suddenly the press is less likely to write an article on your game, resulting in less coverage for the mainstream audience that doesn't scour the internet for every bit of news. Less awareness equals less sales, less sales equal cost correcting measures... it all snowballs downhill.
Of course that's an extreme example, but yes... breaking street dates is important and it can have a negative impact in quantifiable ways.
element
Member
? not even sure what you mean.
Which is what I said as well. I personally can't think of a reason for a store to need a game 14 days before it is out. I can understand a store getting it the Friday before the launch, especially for a game that will have midnight launches, but not two or three weeks before.
That is because most stores rarely get games this early. Typically the manufacturing plants or wholesalers will have a game weeks before. Most games don't get to retailers until days before it is out, or even same day.
EatinOlives
Member
This still isn't going to translate directly to lost jobs due to lost sales due to street-broken copies. One has to make a lot of wild assumptions and jumping to conclusions to get to that point, there simply hasn't been any time in which a dev has lost his/her job because the game they worked on was sold a few days early on large-scale game releases.
At any rate, I want to see proof of exactly that happening before I believe it.
R
Retro_
Unconfirmed Member
EatinOlives
Member
Is being obtuse here on purpose a "thing" in the topic now?
Let's cut to the chase. Show me proof if anyone wants to keep arguing. Lots of bush beating around here with little substance to speak of.
You're taking what he said extremely literally, the business world is rarely that black and white. I guarantee that at some point a retailer broke a street date which led to piracy, which led to lower sales, which led to people losing their jobs. Even if the dots weren't perfectly connected between those events, that can ultimately be the end result.
A Twisty Fluken
Member
You're arguing the ban is justified because street dates need to be sacrosanct, because sales will be lost if a copy leaks online. I am asking you to prove how a leaked copy causes lost sales.
Edit: beaten, I see.
WRONG. If a game is crap word will get out anyway. If a game is good word will get out anyway. If I have Black Ops 2 preordered and a friend tells me its crap, and I decide to not buy it, then I hear from everyone else it's amazing, do you think I'm not going to buy it all of a sudden? Even if it was crap, that's what my friends are playing, so do you think I won't buy it because Joe Schmoe says he got a copy early and it sucks? See how this works?
Also, ALL games are pirated, even bad ones. Every, single, game.
If we're going to assume things like a fan bought a game early to pirate it, I'd like to go back in time and sue IGN for giving God Hand a 3.0 because I deserve a damn sequel and IGN get a lot of readers, and I believe that IGN caused God Hand to fail!
For the sake of this thread, I found a torrent of this terrible excuse for a game in about 4 seconds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMnMOEB1zmE&t=1m25s
If they wanted legitimate paying users permabanned, why would they have Microsoft employees unbanning/promising to unban those same people an hour after they made a complaint about it as we've seen in this thread. They clearly don't want to permaban legitimate paying users, that much is obvious.
This isn't about deterring paying users - even though I'm sure they aren't super happy about them getting it early - it's about banning people who are accessing the game illegally. If they could tell the difference, this guy would only have a Xbox Live ban until the Halo 4 release date. I'm tipping that Microsoft believe that 99% of the users accessing the game online this early are going to be pirates, the other 1% of legitimate users are acceptable collateral damage.
Flashed consoles have been able to play safely on Xbox Live for a pretty significant amount of time now. If they could detect them at will, these consoles would be getting banned automatically on the spot.
pirated copies appear as if they are legit retail copies on xbox live now. once the street date hits and theres a 1:1 copy of the game on the internet, ms has no way of knowing whats legit and whats pirated. its a major flaw in the xbox's design and a big reason they keep releasing slightly updated consoles with new components(besides rrod and things like that)
Jawmuncher
Member
Revolutionary
Member
I didn't realize consumers were under embargo for voicing their opinions about games they've purchased prior to release.
If your game is bad, janky, whatever: people will find out regardless. There are many other ways. Previews, videos, screens, demos, and early reviews.
Conversely, if your game is good, then you will get good word of mouth, and sales will prevail.
I streamed Uncharted 2 in its entirety prior to release, and last I checked it did pretty goddamn well sales-wise.
soulassssns
Banned
Lame comment is lame
At least in the US possession is not 9/10ths of the law. It makes a nice catch phrase, but it isn't reality.
Devil's advocate: The guys who stole the retail discs from the replication plant had "legit" discs from a purely technical standpoint. Doesn't mean they owned them.
Honestly, the situation could have been a lot more annoying if not for the guys here on the forum (Frankie's always been cool, even when he'd bullshit his ass off in Halo 1 matches).
Regular customer service is going to require a receipt (as they have in the past with Reach, Forza 3, etc.) for someone who is saying they were banned improperly. Without a receipt, there's no difference between a purchased disc and one that "fell off the back of the truck."
Given the penalties involved, no receipt likely means that even if he did name the store, the store owner would simply claim the disc was never sold and that it was stolen. The employee that sold it would be the sacrificial lamb.
Thankfully, the 343 guys are pretty cool and are more than willing to take OP at his word. Far from being a black mark on Microsoft, it should be taken as a positive. OP was playing outside the system, got caught up in it, and MS employees are stepping outside the system to make it right.
It's pretty much best case scenario. OP gets to play early and gets unbanned. Store doesn't get fined. No one loses a job. The 343 guys once again show the forum why they're cool.
In the end it's not Microsoft's fault. It's the store's fault and that's where everyone should be pointing their anger. The store is responsible for OP's inconvenience in more ways than one. The store caused it in the first place by selling something it had no right to sell. The store made it more difficult for the OP to resolve by not printing a receipt. Had the store included a receipt, OP wouldn't even have needed to call in a favor from 343. And let's face it, the vast majority of gamers aren't in a position to connect directly with 343.
Situation is resolved. Everyone's happy. Stop arguing and go crack a beer.
User 73706
Banned
GAF drinking game: take a shot every time the word "hyperbole" is used.
R
Retro_
Unconfirmed Member
What?
I'm just going off what was said earlier in the thread (I believe it was Stinkles saying they're still working on implementing features) lining up with the WWE example someone posted on the previous page.
They don't want anyone on right now, so they're banning any account not on the list that tries to access the online.
And then unbanning those users after the release date since, like you said, they don't want them permabanned. They just don't want anyone playing online right now.
I think it was explained earlier that they have a bunch of press gamertags whitelisted and allowed access to the online. Everyone else is getting banned because they don't want anyone else on it.
I don't want to die from liver poisoning.
-Pyromaniac-
Member
Then deal with the store. Customer did nothing but support a developer by purchasing their game.
soulassssns
Banned
Bungie?
element
Member
Crap is pretty harsh. I wouldn't even say crap, just disappointing. The margin of error for games now is razor thin these days. A single review point could cause a developer not to get a bonus. A single rumor can cause a games demand or anticipation to change.
As for all games being pirated. Sure, but most become available on piracy networks when majority of consumers can walk into a store and buy a legit copy.
They aren't, but they shouldn't even have the game to begin with, which is my point.
You'll have to be more specific with the part you don't understand.
Yes, it's been announced that Microsoft will ban users for accessing these games early, but they clearly don't want to permanently ban people who bought the game legitimately like the OP. If they could differentiate between a pirated game and a legitimate copy, the legitimate copy would still be banned, but it would've only be temporary, probably until the actual release date of the game they were playing early. And not temporary ban as in permabanned and then undone by a Microsoft employee, temporary ban like if you call someone a racist name and get a 7 day ban from Xbox Live. If they could differentiate that's no logical explanation for why they'd permaban paying users only to have to deal with the customer complaints, the PR fallout and the legwork of then having to unban that person.
They permanent ban because they are making the assumption that everybody online now is playing with a pirated version of the game. Their agreements with the stores and manufacturers says as much should be true, but obviously these get broken from time to time and you end up with your 1%...i.e. the OP. This is why you are usually fine to go online a couple of days before launch, MS starts assuming street dates are being broken. 2+ weeks before the game is released though? Chances are it's pirates, which rings true here seeing how Halo 4 was leaked almost a month before it's actual release.
tldr;
Piracy = permaban
Playing legitimately bought copy online early = probably not even deemed ban worthy in most cases (as has been evidenced in the past), at worst a temporary ban.
I imagine it went something like this:
OP walks into mom and pop game store...
OP: "Whassup...Obama...Romney sucks....dude....Halo 4 is going to rock."
Store clerk: "Hell ya it is, we actually just received the copies."
OP: "Really?!! Can I buy it?"
Store clerk: "Nope, can't break street date, we'll get in trouble."
OP: "C'mon man, don't be such a corporate shill. I won't tell anyone, besides, I'm in here 4 days a week."
Store clerk: "Sigh.....alright man, just don't, I REPEAT, DON"T GO ONLINE WITH IT, as it may ban you and get us in trouble. I'm sticking my neck out here to make you happy since you're a regular customer."
OP: "No problem man, I know not to go online."
OP goes home, plays game online, gets banned, forgets kindness of store clerk, bitches about it like a child.
I'm sick of people playing the victim card when they fuck up. You KNEW you were getting into something a little dirty (shit, this ain't drugs or prostitutes or tax evasion, just games) so it's really nothing. But you knew. The store was doing you a favor by selling to you early ( do you really think they needed this early sale?). You got caught, deal with it like a fucking man, go back to Hot Topic to see if they have any more Jack merch.
OP walks into mom and pop game store...
OP: "Whassup...Obama...Romney sucks....dude....Halo 4 is going to rock."
Store clerk: "Hell ya it is, we actually just received the copies."
OP: "Really?!! Can I buy it?"
Store clerk: "Nope, can't break street date, we'll get in trouble."
OP: "C'mon man, don't be such a corporate shill. I won't tell anyone, besides, I'm in here 4 days a week."
Store clerk: "Sigh.....alright man, just don't, I REPEAT, DON"T GO ONLINE WITH IT, as it may ban you and get us in trouble. I'm sticking my neck out here to make you happy since you're a regular customer."
OP: "No problem man, I know not to go online."
OP goes home, plays game online, gets banned, forgets kindness of store clerk, bitches about it like a child.
I'm sick of people playing the victim card when they fuck up. You KNEW you were getting into something a little dirty (shit, this ain't drugs or prostitutes or tax evasion, just games) so it's really nothing. But you knew. The store was doing you a favor by selling to you early ( do you really think they needed this early sale?). You got caught, deal with it like a fucking man, go back to Hot Topic to see if they have any more Jack merch.
I'm an expert
Formerly worldrevolution. The only reason I am nice to anyone else is to avoid being banned.
Any real gamer (gafer) would know not to go online with an MS game before date. Just common sense nowadays. Op had it coming for trying to be cute.
Sapphire Dreams
Member
Strange, I bought Reach early on and didn't get banned from it.
It's obviously pretty uncommon, but a friend of mine got a Modern Warfare 2 console shipped to him a week early when that game came out. I think it was from Newegg. We played the game pre-release for quite a few days (thousands of other people had it, as well) and my roommate was one of the top-ranked in the world in a very brief moment of glory. That only lasted until he went to bed.