Support NeoGAF

[OldJadedGamer]

And he still did nothing wrong

But he is protecting the store because they did something wrong together. Like a drug addict protecting their dealer.

It's not the customer's job to do any detective work for Microsoft.

He knows the store and is hiding on purpose by his own admission. If he is truly innocent in this thing then why the need to hide the store name? Why would it matter if it was a legit sale?

 

[Pezking]

They cannot confirm whether it's a paying customer or not. The alternative you're suggesting allows the much larger number of pirates to get away with it while only a very small minority who got the game through lucky means get to enjoy it. The best option is cut off EVERYONE and deal with it as best as possible from then on. Which is what they are doing in this specific situation.

I strongly disagree. Not a single paying customer with a legal copy of a game should suffer if a company wasn't able to prevent the hacking of its console in the first place

If right now Microsoft only has very flawed and faulty methods at their hands to identify modded hardware, they shouldn't ban anyone as soon as the game has shipped to retailers and there's a slight chance that some lucky people already bought their legal retail copies of the game.

 

[I'm an expert]

I strongly disagree. Not a single paying customer with a legal copy of a game should suffer if a company wasn't able to prevent the hacking of its console in the first place

If right now Microsoft only has very flawed and faulty methods at their hands to identify modded hardware, they shouldn't ban anyone as soon as the game has shipped to retailers and there's a slight chance that some lucky people already bought their legal retail copies of the game.

Well, make sure you let MS know you disagree by not paying for their online services and not buying their games. Otherwise, that's the reality of what you have to deal with.

 

[jcm]

You are concentrating on the last thing that happened (the banning) while I'm concentrating on the first thing that happened (the unofficial sale). If you go back in time, if he doesn't purchase the game under the table from the shady retailer (he admits he knew what he was doing) in the first place then everything after that including the banning never happens anyway.

I'm concentrating on the banning because it is the only thing that has hapened out of the ordinary. Street dates get broken all the time. MS has always said that buying a copy before the street date would not result in customer punishment. Now they have apparently changed that.

MS's policy is they can do anything they like if you agree to their ToS and EULA. Same as Blizzard, same as Steam, or Origin, or any online service. They can ban you/lock your content anytime they wish. Only way to protest is not give them your money.

This is a new policy for MS. And your contention is not very interesting. Yes, MS *can* ban consoles for any arbitrary reason they like. We're talking about whether they were right to do so.

Let's rephrase it and i'm sure you'll see he did something wrong. He persuaded someone to sell him something that can make him an unemployed person. Nothing wrong with that, clerk had it coming...right?

This is just idiotic.

But he is protecting the store because they did something wrong together. Like a drug addict protecting their dealer.

This, too. You guys are acting like he bought a stolen Picasso. He bought a video game from a video game store.

 

[Skyfireblaze]

Well following the discussion over the last few pages, why does Microsoft ban the console and gamertag instead of the specific game-discs ID?

 

[Pezking]

He knows the store and is hiding on purpose by his own admission. If he is truly innocent in this thing then why the need to hide the store name? Why would it matter if it was a legit sale?

Why should he have to give that information to anyone in the first place?

It's not like this wasn't a legit sale. It's just that Microsoft would like to enforce their street dates. People shouldn't be forced to help them with that. It's not like selling this copy of the game was against the law.

 

[I'm an expert]

I'm concentrating on the banning because it is the only thing that has hapened out of the ordinary. Street dates get broken all the time. MS has always said that buying a copy before the street date would not result in customer punishment. Now they have apparently changed that.

This is a new policy for MS. And your contention is not very interesting. Yes, MS *can* ban consoles for any arbitrary reason they like. We're talking about whether they were right to do so.

There is no "right" in this or some moral compass. You are a customer, they are a business. You agree to do business with them with their current policies or you don't. That's about it.

Why should he have to give that information to anyone in the first place?

It's not like this wasn't a legit sale. It's just that Microsoft would like to enforce their street dates. People shouldn't be forced to help them with that. It's not like selling this copy of the game was against the law.

Legally, the store did break a contract and they would be subject to any fines or penalties as stated in the contract. So, the reality is they did do something very bad that could affect their business very heavily (imagine not having future MS releases at their store). But, of course, that doesn't affect us, the regular consumers, so who cares.

 

[Pezking]

Well, make sure you let MS know you disagree by not paying for their online services

I don't. I bought my first 360 in 2005, and had a Gold subscription for 3 months in that timespan.

and not buying their games. Otherwise, that's the reality of what you have to deal with.

Right now, I'm actually considering to only buy used MS games in the future.

 

[Mikor]

Why should he have to give that information to anyone in the first place?

It's not like this wasn't a legit sale. It's just that Microsoft would like to enforce their street dates. People shouldn't be forced to help them with that. It's not like selling this copy of the game was against the law.

He is an old, jaded gamer after all.

Really, though, revealing the store's name benefits no-one here. Frank's already told the guy that he was going to be unbanned.

I am surprised we havent seen the gaming blogs run this story, yet.

 

[Pezking]

I have a question: If a console and/or an account is banned, do you still have access to patches or updates?

And you probably can't buy DLC anymore, right?

 

[Pezking]

Oh, and one question at Skel1ingt0n:

Is your console modded?

 

[Mikor]

I have a question: If a console and/or an account is banned, do you still have access to patches or updates?

And you probably can't buy DLC anymore, right?

Correct on all parts. Youre prevented from accessing any part of online services, includng Marketplace, patches, etc. Used to be (may still be) that the ban would also corrupt any profile-linked hdd data such as game saves, avatars, etc.

 

[I'm an expert]

Oh, and one question at Skel1ingt0n:

Is your console modded?

I.. don't think he'd seriously say yes.

 

[polyh3dron]

But he is protecting the store because they did something wrong together. Like a drug addict protecting their dealer.

You are comparing a legit copy of a video game to an illegal narcotic.

Seriously.

 

[show me your skeleton]

Gratz on playing SNES and Sega games without issue. How did you sneak that one past them?? Did you disconnect the phone line from the consoles???

calm your jets buddy, clearly i was on about 360 games. the only games we weren't allowed to borrow early whilst i was there were gears of war 3, bioshock 2 & modern warfare 2. no idea if letting us take any other game early broke a deal between blockbuster & microsoft/publishers, but everything but those specific games were fine to play early.

edit: also i'm not arguing against microsoft's policy/actions, they've a product they need to protect & now have ways to do that.

 

[Uno Venova]

Oh, and one question at Skel1ingt0n:

Is your console modded?

OP says no mods.

But he is protecting the store because they did something wrong together. Like a drug addict protecting their dealer.

He knows the store and is hiding on purpose by his own admission. If he is truly innocent in this thing then why the need to hide the store name? Why would it matter if it was a legit sale?

What does his innocence have to do with the store name?

 

[soulassssns]

OP admitted he knew the risks buying the game this way.

What way? What risks? Because numerous other occasions MS has said that a retail game played before launch will not get you banned.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

You are comparing a legit copy of a video game to an illegal narcotic.

Seriously.

Not all drugs are illegal to have in all states but those same drugs are illegal to sell.

 

[blitzcloud]

This is just idiotic.

Please, enlighten me wise man. Did you read the thread at all?

If you persuade someone to do something that bans your console, and your only choice to unban that console is showing a receipt of said store selling it to you... what would you do if it's "just a clerk" and you're potentially losing your console/gamertag? Some people will rat out the retailers, making that clerk an unemployed person.

I don't go around stores trying to break the street date. Even when I worked for a short time in one of the stores, we only could take a game the night before release date itself at most.

 

[I'm an expert]

calm your jets buddy, clearly i was on about 360 games. the only games we weren't allowed to borrow early whilst i was there were gears of war 3, bioshock 2 & modern warfare 2. no idea if letting us take any other game early broke a deal between blockbuster & microsoft/publishers, but everything but those specific games were fine to play early.

Considering no one's been to a Blockbuster since the 90's, I call shenanigans.

 

[polyh3dron]

Not all drugs are illegal to have in all states but those same drugs are illegal to sell.

Ok.

 

[Mikor]

Not all drugs are illegal to have in all states but those same drugs are illegal to sell.

Since it wasnt made clear, he's saying that your comparison is broken. I know you know better than that too, OJG, so dont play coy about it.

 

[Skel1ingt0n]

I've never once messed with my X360.

Actually, if you look at my history - I have had a 360 since launch day and my Gamerscore is only like 4,000 or something. I don't play it that much - no reason to mod it. I upgraded to a Slim like a year ago, and have maybe played it ~20 hours?

I do own like 60 games for the damn thing, though.

I can take pics of anything necessary to prove so, tonight.

 

[soulassssns]

Considering no one's been to a Blockbuster since the 90's, I call shenanigans.

Blockbuster did not go bust until a couple years ago.

Fixed! Lol

 

[Mikor]

I've never once messed with my X360.

Actually, if you look at my history - I have had a 360 since launch day and my Gamerscore is only like 4,000 or something. I don't play it that much - no reason to mod it. I upgraded to a Slim like a year ago, and have maybe played it ~20 hours?

I do own like 60 games for the damn thing, though.

I can take pics of anything necessary to prove so, tonight.

Dont worry about it. You dont have anything to prove to anyone in this thread - maybe want to reconsider MS hardware/paid services next time around, though.

 

[blitzcloud]

I've never once messed with my X360.

Actually, if you look at my history - I have had a 360 since launch day and my Gamerscore is only like 4,000 or something. I don't play it that much - no reason to mod it. I upgraded to a Slim like a year ago, and have maybe played it ~20 hours?

I do own like 60 games for the damn thing, though.

I can take pics of anything necessary to prove so, tonight.

My question to you would be: when you bought it, did you really know that the person who sold it to you could have problems? Did you somehow persuade him by begging and he knew you from a lot of time, deceiving him into doing something he should not have done?

Or was he just like: I got Halo4, want one?

 

[Uno Venova]

I've never once messed with my X360.

Actually, if you look at my history - I have had a 360 since launch day and my Gamerscore is only like 4,000 or something. I don't play it that much - no reason to mod it. I upgraded to a Slim like a year ago, and have maybe played it ~20 hours?

I do own like 60 games for the damn thing, though.

I can take pics of anything necessary to prove so, tonight.

No need.

 

[jcm]

Not all drugs are illegal to have in all states but those same drugs are illegal to sell.

It's not illegal to sell a video game before the release date.

Please, enlighten me wise man. Did you read the thread at all?

If you persuade someone to do something that bans your console, and your only choice to unban that console is showing a receipt of said store selling it to you... what would you do if it's "just a clerk" and you're potentially losing your console/gamertag? Some people will rat out the retailers, making that clerk an unemployed person.

I don't go around stores trying to break the street date. Even when I worked for a short time in one of the stores, we only could take a game the night before release date itself at most.

Yes, I have read quite a bit of the thread. I must have missed the part where he persuaded the hapless clerk to sell him the video game, and then ratted the clerk out, and the clerk got fired. Please quote that part of the thread for me. Or is this all just some bullshit hypothetical? In which case you forgot to mention that Skel1ingt0n could very well have burned down the store that night to cover his tracks.

 

[blitzcloud]

It's not illegal to sell a video game before the release date.

unfair competition.

Yes, I have read quite a bit of the thread. I must have missed the part where he persuaded the hapless clerk to sell him the video game, and then ratted the clerk out, and the clerk got fired. Please quote that part of the thread for me. Or is this all just some bullshit hypothetical? In which case you forgot to mention that Skel1ingt0n could very well have burned down the store that night to cover his tracks.

In the second part of the post i'm referring to those that are not on neogaf and don't have customer service from a gaffer itself that is gonna unban him. I mean those who will panic over their console getting banned and will rat the retailer, which i'd bet is the purpose of locking down everyone (no one not in whitelist should have a copy of the game. It's a fair commerce thing).

Skelington had the luck of being a gaffer. otherwise, he would probably need to provide a proof to get unbanned. Which is what's gonna happen to the "hundreds of people" having this problem, like it was mentioned on this thread.

 

[LuchaShaq]

Are you serious? We're talking about a legal retail copy here! Do you really think people should actually be punished if they buy something at a store earlier than the publisher would like to?

IF you read my post that you quoted you wouldn't be asking this.

 

[Mikor]

unfair competition.

Ive always taken issue with this argument - if this is such an issue, why not change street dating policies to one where the "street date" is the date released to retailers? Game publishers shouldnt be held accountable for a retailer's inability to manage their supply chain and get the title in stores asap.

 

[blitzcloud]

Ive always taken issue with this argument - if this is such an issue, why not change street dating policies to one where the "street date" is the date released to retailers? Game publishers shouldnt be held accountable for a retailer's inability to manage their supply chain and get the title in stores asap.

Because, well... they try to supply everyone so everyone has an actual chance of selling it? I mean, this benefits small stores more than big ones, which have their thousands of shipments ready as they have even some exclusive content. But then the small shop goes like: "I'ma sell it first lol"

And that's where unfair competition kicks in.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

Ive always taken issue with this argument - if this is such an issue, why not change street dating policies to one where the "street date" is the date released to retailers? Game publishers shouldnt be held accountable for a retailer's inability to manage their supply chain and get the title in stores asap.

Some retailers get their stock before others. Like Best Buy will get it before the mom and pop down the street because they buy way more copies. It is there so that it is fair to all retailers regardless of when your stock arrives, everyone sells on the same day. As blitzcloud pointed out, it is there to help small retailers compete with big retailers.

 

[jcm]

unfair competition.

Yeah, that's not a law. Again, it is not illegal to sell a video game before street date. If you disagree, then please cite a criminal prosecution for it. This should be easy to find, since just about every single street date gets broken somewhere. I imagine the jails are full of these people, just like the jails are full of drug dealers.

In the second part of the post i'm referring to those that are not on neogaf and don't have customer service from a gaffer itself that is gonna unban him. I mean those who will panic over their console getting banned and will rat the retailer, which i'd bet is the purpose of locking down everyone (no one not in whitelist should have a copy of the game. It's a fair commerce thing).

Skelington had the luck of being a gaffer. otherwise, he would probably need to provide a proof to get unbanned. Which is what's gonna happen to the "hundreds of people" having this problem, like it was mentioned on this thread.

So it was just a bullshit hypothetical. You should have had the clerk kill him self in despondence after his wife left him due to his lost job. Then we could have said that Skel1ingt0n was risking people's lives by buying that video game a week before the release date.

 

[show me your skeleton]

Considering no one's been to a Blockbuster since the 90's, I call shenanigans.

hey, someone has to be there to pile up bags of stale popcorn!

 

[Uno Venova]

unfair competition.

The humanity.

 

[blitzcloud]

Yeah, that's not a law. Again, it is not illegal to sell a video game before street date. If you disagree, then please cite a criminal prosecution for it. This should be easy to find, since just about every single street date gets broken somewhere. I imagine the jails are full of these people, just like the jails are full of drug dealers.



So it was just a bullshit hypothetical. You should have had the clerk kill him self in despondence after his wife left him due to his lost job. Then we could have said that Skel1ingt0n was risking people's lives by buying that video game a week before the release date.

If you see above, I asked him if he persuaded the clerk into selling it to him because of a longtime clerk-consumer relationship, and if he know he could get into trouble.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

Yeah, that's not a law. Again, it is not illegal to sell a video game before street date. If you disagree, then please cite a criminal prosecution for it. This should be easy to find, since just about every single street date gets broken somewhere. I imagine the jails are full of these people, just like the jails are full of drug dealers.

And once again, if everything was legit and nothing he did nor the store did was wrong then why the need to hide the store information?

 

[jaaz]

The word "illegal" is being thrown around here without abandon. Reminds me of my first week of law school before the Profs kicked ass.

A street date is a contractual agreement between MS and its distributors. Breaking it is not in violation of any criminal statute, even by the retailer. It's a violation of a civil contract and MS could sue, seek liquidated penalties if the contract provides or in some cases seek an injunction against the retailer prohibiting any more early sales (this last equitable remedy is hard to obtain because MS typically has a remedy at law). The End User is not a party to the agreement. There is no privity of contract with the End User. MS can't hold the End User in breach of that contract and sue them.

What MS can typically do is what they've done: Suspend access to their online service. I say typically because I don't know what the End User Agreement for Live says, but I bet it gives MS great leeway in banning End Users for things like this. Whether it's smart business practice to do so in this situation is another whole discussion altogether. But can MS do it without incurring civil liability to the End User: Likely yes. And let's face it, it's not like the End User is going to spend the money to sue MS. It's more likely MS wouldn't take this action to avoid bad press, assuming the End User did buy a legitimate copy.

As to those casting the first stone on the End User, I am willing to bet my copy if Halo 4 coming from newegg next week that most if not all of you have bought "grey market" merchandise of some sort (look it up) at even legitimate retailers that was not intended for sale in your area. This happens all the time and it's in violation of distribution agreements I assure you. I suspect 99% of you would have continued to purchase the item even knowing this. The companies make their money either way so don't feel too bad for them (piracy... Now that's another issue)

 

[DangerousDave]

This is not the exact case of this thread, but is something that can happen (and maybe is happening to a lot of people right now that don't have post rights on GAF).

So, basically, if you go to a shop, you see that they are selling X game, and you buy it without even knowing that the shop broke the launch date (because not everyone marks the release date of the games on his calendar), you can have your account and console banned.

Then, you have to talk with someone and photograph and email the ticket. Assuming that you kept the ticket (I don't usually kept them, for example, if the game work). Or rant in a internet forum and hope that there is someone from MS that read it.

Yes, I don't see any problem on this.

 

[I'm an expert]

The word "illegal" is being thrown around here without abandon. Reminds me of my first week of law school before the Profs kicked ass.

A street date is a contractual agreement between MS and its distributors. Breaking it is not in violation of any criminal statute, even by the retailer. It's a violation of a civil contract and MS could sue, seek liquidated penalties if the contract provides or in some cases seek an injunction against the retailer prohibiting any more early sales (this last equitable remedy is hard to obtain because MS typically has a remedy at law). The End User is not a party to the agreement. There is no privity of contract with the End User. MS can't hold the End User in breach of that contract and sue them.

What MS can typically do is what they've done: Suspend access to their online service. I say typically because I don't know what the End User Agreement for Live says, but I bet it gives MS great leeway in banning End Users for things like this. Whether it's smart business practice to do so in this situation is another whole discussion altogether. But can MS do it without incurring civil liability to the End User: Likely yes. And let's face it, it's not like the End User is going to spend the money to sue MS. It's more likely MS wouldn't take this action to avoid bad press, assuming the End User did buy a legitimate copy.

As to those casting the first stone on the End User, I am willing to bet my copy if Halo 4 coming from newegg next week that most if not all of you have bought "grey market" merchandise of some sort (look it up) at even legitimate retailers that was not intended for sale in your area. This happens all the time and it's in violation of distribution agreements I assure you. I suspect 99% of you would have continued to purchase the item even knowing this. The companies make their money either way so don't feel too bad for them (piracy... Now that's another issue)

A good post, but all of this has been said repeatedly ad nauseum. The people still discussing it are trying to push the point that what MS did "wasn't right" or basically saying "how dare they"..which is a conversation that has no conclusion until they realize MS is a business that puts its products and business above a few unlucky consumers getting banned temporarily. It will do anything it wishes, and the only way to protest is to not give them your money.

 

[archnemesis]

And once again, if everything was legit and nothing he did nor the store did was wrong then why the need to hide the store information?

Even if everything was legitimate on his end, he might want to spare the store from getting into trouble with Microsoft. Why would you repay the store by snitching?

 

[SlasherJPC]

Man so if I happen to get a Wii U a day early and plug it in... will Nintendo ban me!? Man the things these companies do these days. Pretty nasty. Sorry to hear op. I guess coming on a thread, and posting pictures just isn't good enough.

 

[jcm]

And once again, if everything was legit and nothing he did nor the store did was wrong then why the need to hide the store information?

You're changing the subject again. Selling drugs is illegal. Selling video games before release date is not illegal. Buying drugs is illegal. Buying video games before release date is not illegal. That's why your analogy was a bad one. When the OP bought Halo, no laws were broken. If the OP had bought a couple of Oxycontin pills on the street several laws would have been broken.

 

[gatti-man]

I'm concentrating on the banning because it is the only thing that has hapened out of the ordinary. Street dates get broken all the time. MS has always said that buying a copy before the street date would not result in customer punishment. Now they have apparently changed that.



This is a new policy for MS. And your contention is not very interesting. Yes, MS *can* ban consoles for any arbitrary reason they like. We're talking about whether they were right to do so.




This is just idiotic.



This, too. You guys are acting like he bought a stolen Picasso. He bought a video game from a video game store.

Technically he didn't buy it until launch day. Without a bill of sale or receipt he doesn't own it. The store could claim it stolen or missing.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

Even if everything was legitimate on his end, he might want to spare the store from getting into trouble with Microsoft. Why would you repay the store by snitching?

Everything wasn't legit on his end. The store did not give him a reciept.

 

[Mudkips]

Technically he didn't buy it until launch day. Without a bill of sale or receipt he doesn't own it. The store could claim it stolen or missing.

He owns it when he pays for it. That's how the law works.
He bought it when he bought it. That's how time works.

Everything wasn't legit on his end. The store did not give him a reciept.

Not receiving a receipt does not make you a criminal.

 

[DangerousDave]

Everything wasn't legit on his end. The store did not give him a reciept.

The result is the same. Even with a reciept, he would have been banned, and he would need to contact MS with a photo of the ticket or rant on a forum to have his account back.

Is funny because in PC or other consoles, people use to rant because they got the game before the launch date but the online servers are not up until the lauch date. Ban those filthy illegals!

 

[faceless007]

Technically he didn't buy it until launch day. Without a bill of sale or receipt he doesn't own it. The store could claim it stolen or missing.

I'd be surprised if this were actually true; there are many sales that take place without a receipt being given. Food trucks, street vendors, carnival merchandise, selling things on Craiglist. And I highly doubt the store could claim it stolen or missing because they have the money in the till to account for the game.

 

[polyh3dron]

Everything wasn't legit on his end. The store did not give him a reciept.

Your circular reasoning here is starting to get stale.

Why are you defending Microsoft so fervently in here?