and are probably going out of business, but that's OK! Street dates and microsoft banning people is anti consumer, lack of competition by mom and pop shops breaking street dates is pro consumer! (another case of gaf not really knowing what is and what isn't pro/anti consumer)
Street dates are there for the benefit of mom and pop stores. It's a protectionist measure designed to favor the little guys.
Except... have you really? Who owns the product before the release date? I'm thinking for all this to hold out, it means Microsoft are the entity that actually owns those copies prior to release date. Which strikes me as a little curious, but just about seems to hold together.
Most video games are give to the store on a net 90 term. Which means the store doesn't pay for it until after it's sold it.
And if there is a price drop, the store doesn't eat that cost. It's handled by the distributor/manufacturer.
this is from the big internet:
A receipt is proof of a valid, executed contract.
A contract simply requires meeting of the minds and consideration.
you should contact kotaku, they usually blow things like this wide open and eventually the company involved in the case ends up giving a statement and if you manage to prove you acquire the game legally MS most likely would restore everything back to normal
Did you read the thread?
MS is already reversing the ban, even in the absence of proof. There's no reason for outrage against anyone except the store that sold it.
Doubly so since OP said store was doing this for multiple people. In doing so that store probably screwed over a number of other customers.
If I am a consumer, I don't deal with MS, I deal with a store. They are in the wrong, I just want to play a game and am not the one breaking any rules, because I didn't agree to any rules. This is just crazy...
As a consumer, what do I have to do with the effect early sales have on Microsoft's business. That's not my problem, that's an issue between them and the retailers.
Rules: You probably ignored it, but it is covered in the ToS.
As for the ban, it's on the store for ultimately selling (and creating the condition) that resulted in a ban. It should be on the store to fix it.
But out of cuirosity, what if I bought the game from eBay or CL? There are plenty of copies to buy early right now, and I'm sure none of those would have a receipt. But surely, you wouldn't suggest antyhing/everything bought from eBay is illegitmate.
Many manufacturers consider anything sold on eBay used.
You won't get warranty support or anything like that.
Buying from eBay is like buying from a guy down the street or off CL. You have no idea if the merchandise is stolen or legit.
Gah, one more post.
Just to clear it up- no, didn't know the risks of getting perm'd over a legit copy. In an earlier post I said I Googled before playing and only saw a week old Kotaku post about pirated copies. In the past, I can't recall any console bans over a retail copy of a game.
This is what
Wario was talking about earlier.
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.
These days banning prevents all access to the online service, but doesn't corrupt the console AFAIK. Everything still works, you just can't connect to Xbox Live or any of its related services. It's as though you're playing with a local, offline profile.
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.
Most consumers would probably rat out the store in a heartbeat. If a store sold them something that got them banned (and the store knew it shouldn't be selling it), then there is a theory of strict liability which could see the consumer holding the store financially responsible for his/her loss.
As many have said, it's the store's fault. It would be the store's responsibility to make the customer whole.
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.
Not having street dates would completely screw over the little retailers. If a mom and pop store has it, all of the big box stores have it (and have had it) for awhile. Back in high school I worked for a chain retailer selling music and movies. Whenever a local shop would break street date on something, our manager would send an employee out to buy a copy. Once we had proof another retailer was selling (was needed so the mfg wouldn't fine or blacklist our chain) we would put our stock out. And we'd always have a lot more available (sometimes at a lower price since new releases were always on sale).
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.
You're right, it's not criminal law, but there are penalties under civil law. Stores that break street can be fined or blacklisted.
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.
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.
You've got it flipped around. Mom-and-pops are going to buy from a distributor (likely a local distributor as they're not going to have a large enough account to interest a large national distributor). Big box stores like Best Bey are the ones getting shipments direct from Microsoft.
Now, consider Microsoft's history with regulators.
Can you imagine the
utter shitstorm (especially in the EU) that would arise if MS said "Fuck it, no more street dates! Sell it when you get it?"
Suddenly big box stores are selling Halo 4 a week before the mom and pops even get that shit in. There would be cries of unfair competition, favoritism, monopolistic practices, illegal stock allocation, etc. And
lots and lots of lawsuits.
) and get banned.
