Support NeoGAF

[SlasherJPC]

Not receiving a receipt does not make you a criminal.

Three warrants for my arrest... three receipts I never recevied. OMFG it all makes sense.

I love how people are reacting. Let me see some of these posters put in the same position and not think it's an issue. Cause if your telling me you had the opportunity to buy a game before release date, that you would be use your "morales" and not buy it cause its not officially released... I call bullshit.

 

[archnemesis]

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

A customer isn't required to demand a receipt for a transaction.

Edit: I see Mudkips already covered it.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

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!

Again, I would 100% be on the OP's side if he was innocent in all this but he admits he knew he was taking a risk and the sale was shady to begin with.

Your circular reasoning here is starting to get stale.

Why are you defending Microsoft so fervently in here?

Not defending MS, I'm blaming the store.

 

[bigdaddygamebot]

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.

Or you know...wait for the game to launch.

Or better...if you get the game early...don't be online with your console while playing it.

The OP doesn't exactly sound like he was ravenous to play it. He could have and clearly should have showed more discretion.

I'm not defending Microsoft. Their side of it is equally as dumb.

 

[SlasherJPC]

Again, I would 100% be on the OP's side if he was innocent in all this but he admits he knew he was taking a risk and the sale was shady to begin with.

The only person guilty of anything shady is the store owner. All the customers he sold the game to happily walked out of that store with a shit eating grin on their face and why shouldn't they? Getting a game early from a store that was doing the wrong thing is not their fault. I did the same thing at K Mart a few years back. Why is that my fault? Guess what, its not!... and I threw my receipt away. OHHH NOOOO!

 

[shira]

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.

It is a grey area legally.

If we are talking about rules, yes the store broke a rule.

MS owns the service so it is their rules.
MS decided in their favor - they own the service, they win.
They are the lawwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

 

[JonCha]

yeah, it's ranks.

I was going to say this.

Edit: debunked.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

The only person guilty of anything shady is the store owner. All the customers he sold the game to happily walked out of that store with a shit eating grin on their face and why shouldn't they? Getting a game early from a store that was doing the wrong thing is not their fault. I did the same thing at K Mart a few years back. Why is that my fault? Guess what, its not!... and I threw my receipt away. OHHH NOOOO!

Exactly so lets blame the store. If only the OP would tell us where he bought the game from... Reading the thread, you would know that the OP knows exactly what him and the store was doing and he described the sale as "shady". That is why he won't say who the store is.

 

[DangerousDave]

I'm a little confused, because I read in other threads that the ToS were something without any legal relevance, and now I'm reading that MS can do wathever they want because you accepted the ToS.

 

[SlasherJPC]

Exactly so lets blame the store. If only the OP would tell us where he bought the game from... Reading the thread, you would know that the OP knows exactly what him and the store was doing and he described the sale as "shady". That is why he won't say who the store is.

Look... I know alot of people that get games early from mom and pop stores.... and news flash, people most likely go to and continue to go to these stores because of such events. Why would someone want to remove that? They get a game early, not on their own fault. I can't say anyone wouldn't do the same and keep that to themselves. Hell maybe the store owner is his fiance, his brother in law, etc. Who knows, but is obvious he has a copy of the game, and again didn't do anything wrong. Fault lies on the store that most likely non us have ever, or will ever hear of. Knowing it was "Jim Bobs game emporium" adds nothing to this or his problem. It just gives us a target on a forum? Cause we need that? Come on.

Were loosing focus. Plain and simple he got banned for playing a full legit retail copy and that's really not acceptable. If that's something Microsoft wants to enforce, then they should make that known on the box, in the instructions, before you can even play the game somehow. Hell put it on the dashboard everytime you put a game in like those annyoing Wii warning screens. Then fair enough. For now its just bs. I'm glad he is getting it taken care of.

 

[The Lamp]

So some people actually feel that the customer does not have a legal transaction occur if he doesn't get a receipt.

I really have seen every kind of needless defense on this forum by now.

 

[Mikor]

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.

Yeah, I am in fact aware of the rationale behind placing the onus of a street date on the retailer - but it seems to me there's smarter ways for publishers to hold retailers available than assuming their minimum wage earning register jockeys are going to give two craps about upholding the date printed on the orange sticker. As a former manager of a small retail establishment, I'm well aware of the reasons why the system works the way it does, I just don't agree with holding retailers responsible for doing their jobs. Breaking street date is a problem for no-one except the publisher/developer of the game, and so the onus to uphold the dates should be on them.

It's not "unfair competition", as its completely up to the retailers to ensure their product arrives from their distribution centers to their stores. In the case of a mom-and-pop retailer, odds are they receive product direct from the manufacturer as opposed to from a distribution center, so they get the playing field leveled by not having to jump through the extra logistical step of distribution.

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.

I believe my reply to blitzcloud about covers this. Again, if the publishers have a timed date release of their products to retailers, the onus is on the retailers to keep their competitive advantage. It is not, nor should it be, the publisher's responsibility to uphold a given company's competitive advantages.

I'm a little confused, because I read in other threads that the ToS were something without any legal relevance, and now I'm reading that MS can do wathever they want because you accepted the ToS.

You are correct - in the scope of their own licensed products, they pretty much can do whatever they want, within legal limits. A service provider banning a customer from service is very much legal.

 

[MarauderShields]

Or you know...wait for the game to launch.

Or better...if you get the game early...don't be online with your console while playing it.

The OP doesn't exactly sound like he was ravenous to play it. He could have and clearly should have showed more discretion.

I'm not defending Microsoft. Their side of it is equally as dumb.

If he came on GAF and asked for opinions he would have likely been told he would be fine to play it.

 

[SmokedMeat]

Assuming the op (or anyone) had a legitimate reason to be banned, why on earth would they refund you? You pay for the service and agree to their terms. Do people who get banned on an mmo for whatever reason get their subscriptions refunded?

Does the terms of service for Gold mention anything about playing games before the street date?

 

[bigdaddygamebot]

So some people actually feel that the customer does not have a legal transaction occur if he doesn't get a receipt.

I really have seen every kind of needless defense on this forum by now.

And some people think the whole purchase was on the up and up because the OP says it was.

It cuts both ways.

If he came on GAF and asked for opinions he would have likely been told he would be fine to play it.

Maybe I'm hyper-cautious but when I got Halo 3, three days early, I took my console offline. You're playing in Microsoft's playground. It's their rules and they're not exactly known for being customer-friendly or reasonable. So why risk it?

It just seems like the OP knew exactly what he was getting himself into. He can plead ignorance but it can also be said that he kept his console online simply to be able to "show off". Looks like people definitely saw it.

 

[iammeiam]

What's sort of shitty is that the easiest way for MS to avoid the need to distinguish between legit pre-release purchases and torrented copies would just be going all project $10 and including a pack-in code required for online functionality. Easy verification that all online players can track back to a retail copy. No bans, no fuss, plus cripples used copies. I guess I'm sort of surprised that's not what they did, actually.

 

[polyh3dron]

Not defending MS, I'm blaming the store.

So you agree that it's wrong for the end user to be punished then? Because your posts ITT don't seem to.

 

[Pezking]

I've never once messed with my X360.

Thanks. I thought so. And you don't have to prove anything to anyone.

The reason why I asked you this:

About 2 weeks ago, after "Halo 4" was leaked online and MS started banning the ones who already played it, I asked in a german game forum if this couldn't also be a problem for people who get a legal copy of the game maybe a week before the street date (which is very common around here, especially for games that are released on a tuesday, and not the typical friday for Europe).

In response to that, many claimed that MS can somehow identify online if a console is modded or not, and that they just use the extremely early leaked "Halo 4" to narrow down the consoles to check and then ban the users that modded their XBox. If that was true, buyers of the retail version would be safe.

Turns out this was just bogus.

If Microsoft doesn't change their policy very fast, expect to see (and hear) hundreds if not thousands of banned Europeans who will get the retail version of "Halo 4" on thursday or friday at the latest. There are already austian online stores who now list November 2nd as the day they start selling the game.

This could get really ugly in a few days...

 

[jcm]

It is a grey area legally.

If we are talking about rules, yes the store broke a rule.

MS owns the service so it is their rules.
MS decided in their favor - they own the service, they win.
They are the lawwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

In the US, at least, it's not a grey area legally. It is not illegal to buy or sell a video game before the release date.

In response to that, many claimed that MS can somehow identify online if a console is modded or not, and that they just use the extremely early leaked "Halo 4" to narrow down the consoles to check and then ban the users that modded their XBox. If that was true, buyers of the retail version would be safe.

That used to be MS's policy. This is a quote form Stephen Toulouse, when he was Director of Xbox LIVE Policy and Enforcement:

"I can be clear however that this applies to illegitimate copies only, the ban covers the Xbox LIVE account and could possibly include their console depending on the results of our investigations (which are ongoing). We do this from time to time with titles to combat piracy," he wrote to Kotaku. "If a user happens to purchase a legit copy of Halo 3: ODST early, then our problem is not with the user but the retailer who broke the street date. Those individuals will not be punished."

It's not clear when or why MS changed this policy.

 

[kyo27]

So some people actually feel that the customer does not have a legal transaction occur if he doesn't get a receipt.

I really have seen every kind of needless defense on this forum by now.

Thats not the actual point. The point is the person who sold him the game told him he can't give him the receipt because he can't sell the game until Nov. 6. I don't agree with the ban, but what do you expect to happen if you play what is probably the 2nd highest profile release of the year almost a full two weeks before release. If you walk into KMart and buy the game and it goes through the system, fine. When you have to circumvent the system to obtain the game, then your asking for trouble. People were getting banned for playing MW3 early as well. And let's be real, if the guy is protecting the store, he is probably buddies with the person who sold it.

 

[DangerousDave]

I think that we're losing the main point, focusing on this specific case and with all that "confess who is your drug dealer" thing.

The main point is that MS is banning people that bought Halo 4 before the release date, even if they got a ticket, even if they didn't know when it's the official release date, and then people has to call MS and give evidences to prove that they bought the game legally, just because they aren't able to know if a game copy is legit or pirated.

I saw the term "anti-consumer" a lot of times in neogaf, sometimes in online passes discussions, region locking, DRM, etc, I don't see anything more "anti-consumer" than banning someone that bought your game. Day 1 (well, even earlier than Day 1). At full price.

 

[MarauderShields]

Maybe I'm hyper-cautious but when I got Halo 3, three days early, I took my console offline. You're playing in Microsoft's playground. It's their rules and they're not exactly known for being customer-friendly or reasonable. So why risk it?

It just seems like the OP knew exactly what he was getting himself into. He can plead ignorance but it can also be said that he kept his console online simply to be able to "show off". Looks like people definitely saw it.

But they have come out in the past and said it was ok. I know someone will say "they can do what they want" but its pretty obvious why someone would think they are allowed.

 

[Pezking]

"I can be clear however that this applies to illegitimate copies only, the ban covers the Xbox LIVE account and could possibly include their console depending on the results of our investigations (which are ongoing). We do this from time to time with titles to combat piracy," he wrote to Kotaku. "If a user happens to purchase a legit copy of Halo 3: ODST early, then our problem is not with the user but the retailer who broke the street date. Those individuals will not be punished."

It's not clear when or why MS changed this policy.

Huh. Thanks for the quote.

How likely is it that MS changed this policy in the meantime?

 

[bigdaddygamebot]

But they have come out in the past and said it was ok. I know someone will say "they can do what they want" but its pretty obvious why someone would think they are allowed.

It might be something as simple as the person hitting the button at Microsoft's end is under the impression that anyone playing Halo 4 right now is playing a pirated copy so...ban them.

If a retailer breaks street date, well...the customer can always present a copy of their receipt to Microsoft and they lift the ban.

So just present the receipt right?

Blame Microsoft.
Blame the retailer.


...but people making the OP out to be a victim in this is madness. The guy knew exactly what he was doing and has admitted to such.

 

[Ploid 3.0]

I can't imagine a modern consumer wouldn't question a purchase in which:

a) he's only allowed to pay cash
b) the clerk refuses to give him a receipt
c) on the cover is a giant orange sticker saying, "Do not sell before this date!"
d) the copies aren't up on display, but rather are stashed away in a crate in the back room

My mom managed to buy us a copy Free Willy VHS before it's release date. There was a don't sell before XX XX XX somewhere because the clerk said she wasn't supposed to sell it at the time and everyone was happy. It didn't matter how shady it looked because she received what she expected for the money she paid. If this guy was told to meed someone in the back alley at 3am for the trade paying the money up front then that would look shady. I've been buying games on download services lately and I don't think I've looked at or collected my invoices for any of them. All those shady Amazon/steam games!

 

[Pezking]

The main point is that MS is banning people that bought Halo 4 before the release date, even if they got a ticket, even if they didn't know when it's the official release date, and then people has to call MS and give evidences to prove that they bought the game legally, just because they aren't able to know if a game copy is legit or pirated.

I saw the term "anti-consumer" a lot of times in neogaf, sometimes in online passes discussions, region locking, DRM, etc, I don't see anything more "anti-consumer" than banning someone that bought your game. Day 1 (well, even earlier than Day 1). At full price.

Thank you. That's exactly the point.

 

[bigdaddygamebot]

I think that we're losing the main point, focusing on this specific case and with all that "confess who is your drug dealer" thing.

The main point is that MS is banning people that bought Halo 4 before the release date, even if they got a ticket, even if they didn't know when it's the official release date, and then people has to call MS and give evidences to prove that they bought the game legally, just because they aren't able to know if a game copy is legit or pirated.

I saw the term "anti-consumer" a lot of times in neogaf, sometimes in online passes discussions, region locking, DRM, etc, I don't see anything more "anti-consumer" than banning someone that bought your game. Day 1 (well, even earlier than Day 1). At full price.

It's anti-consumer if they are banning everyone with no opportunity to have the ban lifted even if you present a receipt of purchase.

It might very well be their solution to piracy.

It might not be a smart solution but it's not anti-consumer if they are willing to lift bans.

 

[MarauderShields]

It might be something as simple as the person hitting the button at Microsoft's end is under the impression that anyone playing Halo 4 right now is playing a pirated copy so...ban them.

If a retailer breaks street date, well...the customer can always present a copy of their receipt to Microsoft and they lift the ban.

So just present the receipt right?

Blame Microsoft.
Blame the retailer.


...but people making the OP out to be a victim in this is madness. The guy knew exactly what he was doing and has admitted to such.

Well he is. He did nothing wrong and shouldnt have been banned.

 

[vg260]

So the OP just shows MS a pic of the game, provides his purchase receipt or information of the store from which he purchased it and when, and they unban him. Seems simple enough. I mean it was a legit purchase right? If that's the case, what's so intrusive about being asked where he bought it? I didn't read the whole thing, but is the Op refusing to show any sort of information? (I know he doesn't have a receipt).

 

[AkuMifune]

Well he is. He did nothing wrong and shouldnt have been banned.

No, he didn't do anything wrong. But he is dumb for not playing it offline.

You're just asking for trouble promoting the fact you're playing the most important first-party exclusive game of the year before you're supposed to. I mean, really.

 

[polyh3dron]

So the OP just shows MS a pic of the game, provides his purchase receipt or information of the store from which he purchased it and when, and they unban him. Seems simple enough. I mean it was a legit purchase right? If that's the case, what's so intrusive about being asked where he bought it? I didn't read the whole thing, but is the Op refusing to show any sort of information?

The OP happens to be a GAF member, and we happen to have someone who works for 343 here. I don't expect any other people this happens to to be that lucky. How are they supposed to know who to contact for this kind of thing so that they don't have to deal with a fucking Indian Call Center that will just turn them away due to their shitty scripts?

 

[MarauderShields]

No, he didn't do anything wrong. But he is dumb for not playing it offline.

You're just asking for trouble promoting the fact you're playing the most important first-party exclusive game of the year before you're supposed to. I mean, really.

But again MS always says its ok

 

[KAOS]

If the game is Legit there should be no reason for a ban. Money is Money regardless of date. Fuck street dates!!!

Banning people for playing legit copies is only going to encourage the opposite!

 

[Pezking]

It might not be a smart solution but it's not anti-consumer if they are willing to lift bans.

Of course it is. Putting everyone who plays "Halo 4" before the street date under general suspicion of playing a pirated copy (even after the game has been shipped to retailers!) and immediately starting banning everyone before checking every case individually...it doesn't get more anti-consumer than this.

 

[DangerousDave]

It's anti-consumer if they are banning everyone with no opportunity to have the ban lifted even if you present a receipt of purchase.

It might very well be their solution to piracy.

It might not be a smart solution but it's not anti-consumer if they are willing to lift bans.

First, you get banned even if you spent 60$ on the original first-hand game. Then you have to call MS, prove that you are innocent making a photo of the receipt, and wait for the ban to get lifted.

There is a easy way to prevent piracy. Ban everyone. Then ask them to make a photo of their 360 showing the serial number and proof that the case hasn't been opened. Not anti-consumer at all, and it might very well be their solution to piracy.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

So you agree that it's wrong for the end user to be punished then? Because your posts ITT don't seem to.

If the poster didn't know the store was not supposed to sell it? Yes, it is wrong he was punished. If he knew they were not supposed to sell it (he knew) then it is not wrong as he fully admits he knew there would be risks taking it online. The OP is not the doe eyed innocent and naive gamer you try to make him out to be.

 

[jcm]

...but people making the OP out to be a victim in this is madness. The guy knew exactly what he was doing and has admitted to such.

He admitted the nefarious act of buying a video game.

No, he didn't do anything wrong. But he is dumb for not playing it offline.

You're just asking for trouble promoting the fact you're playing the most important first-party exclusive game of the year before you're supposed to. I mean, really.

Yes, taking MS at their word that early purchasers would not be punished is really dumb.

 

[vg260]

Of course it is. Putting everyone who plays "Halo 4" before the street date under general suspicion of playing a pirated copy (even after the game has been shipped to retailers!) and immediately starting banning everyone before checking every case individually...it doesn't get more anti-consumer than this.

I don't see putting a lock one someone's account unreasonable, and long as they allow an open channel for communication to provide legit purchase info. Apparently that's not the case, so I see that as the problem on how they're handling it.

 

[bigdaddygamebot]

He admitted the nefarious act of buying a video game.

Man that's clever. How's that working out for you?

 

[AkuMifune]

Yes, taking MS at their word that early purchasers would not be punished is really dumb.

Yeah, it kind of is. MS will always err in favor of protecting their shit over consumer rights, even if they said so.

This is because lawyers get paid more than community managers.

 

[Ellasman]

I would have played the campaign first and waited for launch to start playing multiplayer. I always find that I fall behind in multiplayer because I never play it until I'm done campaign.

 

[bigdaddygamebot]

Of course it is. Putting everyone who plays "Halo 4" before the street date under general suspicion of playing a pirated copy (even after the game has been shipped to retailers!) and immediately starting banning everyone before checking every case individually...it doesn't get more anti-consumer than this.

It can definitely get much more anti-consumer than this.

Not that I'm using that as an excuse to say it's not a big deal.

The fact that this isn't a big deal is why I'm saying this isn't a big deal.

If you're playing an incredibly high-profile game at a time when it is likely that the majority of people playing it are press or pirates...and you're neither...expect difficulties.

First, you get banned even if you spent 60$ on the game. Then you have to call MS, prove that you are innocent making a photo of the receipt, and wait for the ban to get lifted.

The OP is certainly saying he spent $60 on the game.

There is a easy way to prevent piracy. Ban everyone. Then ask them to make a photo of their 360 showing the serial number and proof that the case hasn't been opened. Not anti-consumer at all, and it might very well be their solution to piracy.

I'm not certain that's the process that someone needs to go through but if it is...that's fucked. Which is precisely why I no longer have any interest in playing a game before official launch. There are other, better reasons as well but on the off-chance that I'm going to have to go through a song and dance such as this? Why bother?

Corporations are fucked these days. Pretty much all of them. Is this any way surprising that Microsoft handles this the way it does?

 

[DAREALGUMMY]

Why are people freaking out about MS doing this? He isn't SUPPOSED to be playing the game. Don't worry though guys, once they lock game discs to a single console, it won't be a problem.

 

[Ploid 3.0]

Are you guys sure he knew Microsoft would ban him if he took his console online while playing the game? Is it the only console you get banned on for playing a game urley? Did the Ultimate Marvel vs Capcom 3 people get banned? I remember them playing online but no mention of banns.

 

[FallingSputnik]

The real crime here OP, is being an active subscriber to AT&T.

 

[MarauderShields]

Are you guys sure he knew Microsoft would ban him if he took his console online while playing the game? Is it the only console you get banned on for playing a game urley? Did the Ultimate Marvel vs Capcom 3 people get banned? I remember them playing online but no mention of banns.

Of course not. All evidence would suggest he wouldnt be banned and the fact that hes getting unbanned is very telling also.

 

[bigdaddygamebot]

Are you guys sure he knew Microsoft would ban him if he took his console online while playing the game? Is it the only console you get banned on for playing a game urley? Did the Ultimate Marvel vs Capcom 3 people get banned? I remember them playing online but no mention of banns.

Ultimate Marvel vs Capcom 3 is most certainly NOT Halo 4.

C'mon now...

Of course not. All evidence would suggest he wouldnt be banned and the fact that hes getting unbanned is very telling also.

Telling...what exactly? That 343 GAF fella believes the OP isn't a pirate? Then it quite possibly means that upon proving that you legitimately acquire the game...they lift the ban?

 

[Palette Swap]

Banning a legitimate (paying) customer because you apparently can't differentiate between genuine discs and copies is anti-consumer as hell. If your banning system can create false positives so easily, change it or don't enforce it.

The only scenario in which MS aren't assholes here is if the actual disc is a bootleg the consumer bought unknowingly but AFAIK, this isn't possible on 360.

That being said, props to Frankie for his uber fast reply.

 

[sixteen-bit]

lol @ the corporate apologists in this thread.

especially if they don't work for Microsoft.

 

[jcm]

Man that's clever. How's that working out for you?

I guess not so good, because it's clearly not getting through to you. You still seem to think the OP did something wrong when he purchased a fucking video game from a video game retailer.

Yeah, it kind of is. MS will always err in favor of protecting their shit over consumer rights, even if they said so.

This is because lawyers get paid more than community managers.

Wel, apparently you're right, but just for the record, my quote wasn't from a community manager. It was from the Director of Xbox LIVE Policy and Enforcement. There's a new sheriff in town, though, and I guess he has a different poilcy.