Support NeoGAF

[Yagharek]

He sent it to Frankie with the stipulation that no action would be taken against the store. Perhaps Frankie tried to resolve this but his Microsoft bosses wanted to take action against the store. Perhaps Frankie knowing the stipulation Skelington made, didn't proceed.

Yes, this is why I'm giving Stinkles the benefit of the doubt. If he witheld the information at my request, then good on him; I appreciate it! It's fine, and I have no beef with him.

That said, I'd appreciate it if he told me that was the reason, so that we could settle this and determine MS is holding my account ransom in hopes I'll snitch for them like a rat.

This is more interesting now that we have some details on a potential reason why.

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

Why would they be so determined to bust one store? Whats in it for them?

 

[Infinite Justice]

So Stinkles is roped back in again whether he likes it or not? lulz

 

[dallow_bg]

So you gave them an unaltered receipt, but won't play MS's snitch.

OK, does the unaltered receipt not include the name of the store? That's a rare occurrence, if so.

Sounds like a mom and pop store which (which are exactly the type to arrange these kind of transactions if you're a known customer).

Biggest local comic book store in my area is all numbers, and SKUs, no names.
They just have pretty standard tape machines.

 

[blitzcloud]

So you gave them an unaltered receipt, but won't play MS's snitch.

OK, does the unaltered receipt not include the name of the store? That's a rare occurrence, if so.

It may just mean that stinkles kept his promise so the store doesn't get affected, but as a consequence, he can't do anything as they either give away the store name or they keep banned.

 

[bananas]

Well, there's one thing that's for sure. Frankie's not going to involve himself with another one of these in the future.

 

[dallow_bg]

Well, there's one thing that's for sure. Frankie's not going to involve himself with another one of these in the future.

He should definitely not make bold posts like he did.
And should also respond to PMs.

 

[Valnen]

Why would they be so determined to bust one store? Whats in it for them?

Well the store kind of deserves it. They shouldn't be breaking release dates. Not sure why the OP is so desperate to protect it that he'd throw money away to do so.

 

[robotzombie]

Well the store kind of deserves it. They shouldn't be breaking release dates.

Stores shouldn't break release dates, but corporations shouldn't hold consumers hostages in order to enforce their deals with stores.

Edit: Also, breaking street dates is one of the only legs up local mom and pop stores could possibly use to combat the huge corporations.

 

[Orca]

The OP could file a suit in small claims court to recover the cost of his console and purchased games if he wanted to, right? It seems that it would be pretty easy to prove his case if he has his receipt.

He still has, or had until he sold it, access to his console and games. He doesn't have access to Xbox Live, which is a private service they're within their rights to withhold access to - just as he doesn't have to tell them what retailer he convinced to sell the game to him weeks early.

 

[Valnen]

Stores shouldn't break release dates, but corporations shouldn't hold consumers hostages in order to enforce their deals with stores.

Eh, all it would take for the consumer to be "free" in this case is to just cough up the name of the store. It's not a big deal. The OP is bringing the ban entirely on himself at this point, he has the power to get unbanned and he refuses.

 

[CREMSteve]

I can't believe you bought another Xbox.

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

Stores shouldn't break release dates, but corporations shouldn't hold consumers hostages in order to enforce their deals with stores.

Edit: Also, breaking street dates is one of the only legs up local mom and pop stores could possibly use to combat the huge corporations.

Exactly. To care so much about it that you'd hold a customers account hostage just seems off.

 

[Septimius]

My 360 has been demoted to expensive DVD-player for my parents, in my house. Sure, useless d-pad, noise, clunky UI and a disinterest in Xbox 360 exclusives are a driving force, but customer support clearly is probably the reason why it would take way too much for me to get a multiplat on the 360. Last thing I actually used the console for was probably ME2. And Lost Odyssey.

The day I had to send them a mail, or call them to fucking cancel my gold account, was the day I stopped viewing them as someone trying to care for their customers, and instead someone just thinking of me as a wad of cash.

I'm completely aware that this is what business is all about - how to trick you out of as much money as possible, which makes it hard for me to put my finger on why I just look at MS' execution of customer service with the 360 as ridiculous. Well, that's probably it, though. I've called all three companies at one point or another. This is pretty much my various experiences:

Sony - Managed to help me with my problems and put in effort to get me in touch would someone that could help me

Nintendo (trouble with WiFi) - Very friendly, but too basic for me. When the guy asked me if I had plugged in my WiFi-router, I told him "look, I have an access point, not a home router - I can see the Wii connecting to the router, but it ends up dropping its IP, but I still see the mac authenticated on the AP" - to which he said "I hear that you're very tech savvy, so these questions will just be a hindrance to you. I'll have one of our technicians call you back". I ended up ditching the AP and getting a more home-device friendly wireless device, but pleasant experience

MS - those times I have spoken with them; frank replies, little tentative care. In reaction to my complaints about a ridiculously lacking system (having to call them to cancel my gold account - what a joke. Yes, this is years ago), they pretty much said "lol care".


So not only was it a system that nearly screamed "we're trying to make it hard for you to quit, because lol money", but customer support even wanted to argue that it was a better system. The whole thing just sucks. No other community has a more hostile online environment, no other online community is more prone to scams and hacks (even with Sony's breach, the main problem wasn't a loss of accounts, it was the loss of cc info, and cc companies take that fall), no other community are so prone to sexual harassment.

All in all, this is just a demonstration of the way they deal with customers. "When in doubt; pirates" - I could just imagine some casual gamer stumbling into a mom&pop store and buying Anticipated Title 4, unaware that it's not yet launch date, all giddily playing, suddenly just having their account AND console banned. It's not like it's a suspension from the game for playing too early - it's not like the game is just set up to not work before release date. No, everything is there and working, but you're punished if you use it. And you're completely locked out of everything online if you do.

It's a case of assuming blame on the end user, when that's the last thing you should do.

 

[DenogginizerOS]

Stores shouldn't break release dates, but corporations shouldn't hold consumers hostages in order to enforce their deals with stores.

What happens to stores who break these rules? If they know what happens, but still sell the game early resulting in a customer losing the functionality of the console, and then let the customer flip in the wind while they stay anonymous, I'd say they are not worth defending.

 

[Valnen]

Edit: Also, breaking street dates is one of the only legs up local mom and pop stores could possibly use to combat the huge corporations.

If they can't compete legitimately they shouldn't be in business.

 

[robotzombie]

Eh, all it would take for the consumer to be "free" in this case is to just cough up the name of the store. It's not a big deal.

That's an insanely big deal, now you are suggesting that at all times you must keep your receipts of every game you purchased because at any moment Microsoft can decide to shut you off and force you to prove you legally obtained a game. You shouldn't have to cough up the name of a store, you shouldn't have to be bothered in any way as a consumer because of "street dates". That is not the responsibility of a consumer.

 

[Valnen]

That's an insanely big deal, now you are suggesting that at all times you must keep your receipts of every game you purchased because at any moment Microsoft can decide to shut you off and force you to prove you legally obtained a game. You shouldn't have to cough up the name of a store, you shouldn't have to be bothered in any way as a consumer because of "street dates". That is not the responsibility of a consumer.

I disagree with this. Everyone knows the day the game legitimately comes out. And the OP DID save the receipt, so he has the full power to be unbanned, he just refuses. It's all on him now.

 

[Yagharek]

So not only was it a system that nearly screamed "we're trying to make it hard for you to quit, because lol money", but customer support even wanted to argue that it was a better system. The whole thing just sucks. No other community has a more hostile online environment, no other online community is more prone to scams and hacks (even with Sony's breach, the main problem wasn't a loss of accounts, it was the loss of cc info, and cc companies take that fall), no other community are so prone to sexual harassment

.....

It's a case of assuming blame on the end user, when that's the last thing you should do.

Excellent post septimus, and matches my impressions/perception based on how they have treated friends and myself.

I disagree with this. Everyone knows the day the game legitimately comes out. And the OP DID save the receipt, so he has the full power to be unbanned, he just refuses. It's all on him now.

Eh not really. I didnt even know the day it was due to come out (refer above to me quitting the platform) but I am very much aware of a lot of gaming news in general. Its reasonable to assume some people wouldn't know.

What I don't get is why he has to be banned permanently. If he bought the game a week early for example, ban him for a week and reinstate his account automatically if you must. But a permaban effectively steals all his money invested in xbla content etc on a capricious assertion that an important marketing date holds more sway than customer care.

It's an abhorrent practice that punishes paying customers and not the people they should be after: pirates.

 

[Z_Y]

He still has, or had until he sold it, access to his console and games. He doesn't have access to Xbox Live, which is a private service they're within their rights to withhold access to - just as he doesn't have to tell them what retailer he convinced to sell the game to him weeks early.

Not true if the console was not the console he purchased the games with...and given that the we are 7 years into this Gen and RROD...good chance it is not.

 

[DenogginizerOS]

That's an insanely big deal, now you are suggesting that at all times you must keep your receipts of every game you purchased because at any moment Microsoft can decide to shut you off and force you to prove you legally obtained a game. You shouldn't have to cough up the name of a store, you shouldn't have to be bothered in any way as a consumer because of "street dates". That is not the responsibility of a consumer.

If the store has a legal agreement with the vendor representing Microsoft and they subject their customers to punishment by knowingly breaking that agreement, they are not worth defending.

 

[Biff]

There's too many missing details here. We aren't getting an unbiased account because OP is trying to protect his friend who manages/works at the store that gave him the early copy, then played shenanigans to book the sale on release day (pretty sure this is accounting fraud by the way, lmao).

If I was Stinkles, I sure as shit would cease all communication with OP. I am not risking my job at a major developer to help some guy protect his friend who broke policy. I don't blame him at all.

Do I think OP's account should be permanently banned? No.
Do I think Microsoft is right in holding his account hostage for the leak's details? No.
Is OP innocent? Absolutely not.

It's a terrible situation and the only response I can see from anyone on the MS side from here on is to ignore OP until this passes. The fact that he bought a new Xbox is hilarious, but is a completely unrelated point to this debacle and doesn't/shouldn't have any impact on either side's stance.

 

[robotzombie]

I disagree with this. Everyone knows the day the game legitimately comes out.

Holy shit dude, now you are just being ridiculous. NO, everyone doesn't know that. YOU know that because you care a lot about video games, enough to be on NeoGAF. The rest of the world isn't like you. Nowhere on a game does it state anything to the effect of "you cannot play this game until x date." The street date is for SELLING, not PLAYING. If the street date is broken, that is on the seller, not the buyer. If a person walks into a store and buys a game because a mom and pop store is selling it early, just flat out sees it on the shelf and buys it, they are supposed to be held accountable because its not "out" yet?

If the store has a legal agreement with the vendor representing Microsoft and they subject their customers to punishment by knowingly breaking that agreement, they are not worth defending.

And what in the hell are you going on about? The entire point is that never before (nor should it ever be the case) have consumers been punished like this for street dates being broken. There IS no laws or rules against consumers for this. Microsoft is going out of there way to punish a person as a "pirate", when they aren't. The store isn't knowingly subjecting their customers to anything. They are subjecting THEMSELVES to the possibility of falling out of the good graces of the people they get their supply from or get fined. But they have every right to take that chance. The end customer shouldn't be involved in the first place.

 

[Uno Venova]

I disagree with this. Everyone knows the day the game legitimately comes out.

This thread.

 

[blitzcloud]

If they can't compete legitimately they shouldn't be in business.

I'm sure they offered H4 to every client that walked in the store. Not to their most trusted clients (those who will buy the game there: today or in 10 days) only and only by request.

If they can't compete legitimately they shouldn't be in business.

Preorder on X , Y or Z big store and get exclusive DLC. LEGITIMATE COMPETITIONNNN.

 

[Orca]

Not true if the console was not the console he purchased the games with...and given that the we are 7 years into this Gen and RROD...good chance it is not.

You can move the licenses to the new console. Can't remember what the process is called though - migration, maybe?

I wonder what the chances are the guy actually works at the store and 'sold' it to himself early. There's no way we have the full story from either side.

 

[Z_Y]

You can move the licenses to the new console. Can't remember what the process is called though - migration, maybe?

I wonder what the chances are the guy actually works at the store and 'sold' it to himself early. There's no way we have the full story from either side.

I imagine that process would be quite difficult if his account has been banned.

 

[Valnen]

I'm sure they offered H4 to every client that walked in the store. Not to their most trusted clients (those who will buy the game there: today or in 10 days) only and only by request.

I don't like the idea of stores out there breaking the rules for special privileged people anyway so I have no sympathy if they get punished when it's found out they've been breaking street dates. Really, there is no good excuse for that.

 

[blitzcloud]

I don't like the idea of stores out there breaking the rules for special privileged people anyway so I have no sympathy if they get punished when it's found out they've been breaking street dates. Really, there is no good excuse for that.

As I stated previously on my edit:

If they can't compete legitimately they shouldn't be in business.

Preorder on X , Y or Z big store and get exclusive DLC. LEGITIMATE COMPETITIONNNN.

Not to mention that their revenue isn't as big as they can't buy in bulk, so the big stores can easily reduce the price or give some sort of bonus discount. I guess we differ in what legitimate competition means. I thought it was to protect small fish from the big guys. If a store openly sells H4 early, they'll get caught and fined and i'm alright with that. But if they sell it to 3, 4 consumers that are long time buyers... I think it's mean to prosecute them.

 

[Yagharek]

I don't like the idea of stores out there breaking the rules for special privileged people anyway so I have no sympathy if they get punished when it's found out they've been breaking street dates. Really, there is no good excuse for that.

Not really a proportionate punishment though is it?

 

[Orca]

I imagine that process would be quite difficult if his account has been banned.

Well yeah, you'd probably want to do that before you play the highest-profile Microsoft Studios title a couple weeks prior to street date, doubly so when you're buying it without a receipt.

 

[jamesinclair]

I haven't noticed anyone in this thread offering up any reasonable alternative solutions to enforcing street dates that don't involve customers ratting out the retailer, so Microsoft's solution must be the only viable one.

Small claims court.

 

[DenogginizerOS]

But if they sell it to 3, 4 consumers that are long time buyers... I think it's mean to prosecute them.

Subjecting a customer to punishments resulting from your willful neglect of a contract you signed just to make a few dollars off that sale is indefensible. The defense of the store in this particular case is baffling to me.

 

[Yagharek]

Small claims court.

Would work for the customer in principle, but would also see the retailer named as the receipt would be required as evidence and then on public record.

MS could then go and wreak havoc on thema accordingly, removing their contracted right to sell MS products and even use MS software like windows operating systems that many businesses use. POS software often runs on windows and would be expensive for a small store to replace.

Sounds like the cheapest option would be for the store to give the OP some free MS points/store credit equal to the value of xbla games he lost since he is refusing to name them.

 

[blitzcloud]

Subjecting a customer to punishments resulting from your willful neglect of a contract you signed just to make a few dollars off that sale is indefensible. The defense of the store in this particular case is baffling to me.

show me a contract that says: USERS WILL BE BANNED FOR PLAYING IT BEFORE RELEASE DATE.

Then I can believe that they knew this was a possibility at all. If anything they risked themselves for those few dollars and making a customer happy

 

[Septimius]

The timeline just doesn't add up, though. OP is claiming to try and resolve the case. At the same time he's already sold the banned Xbox. He doesn't want to give up the store he got it from, at the same time he's saying he gave them a receipt showing the name of the store. It's like someone's lying about something, but as much as I might not like MS' customer support, I really see no reason why they would flat out lie and say "he hasn't provided us with what we asked" if he has.

show me a contract that says: USERS WILL BE BANNED FOR PLAYING IT BEFORE RELEASE DATE.

Also, if the problem is users playing online before release date, why not just DISABLE ONLINE UNTIL RELEASE DATE. At one hand, MS is pretending this has to do with piracy and users unfairly playing online before release date. On the other hand, they're smacking end users to get them to fork over the names of stores breaking release date. It just stinks of corporate harassment, and the ugliest thing is that they're making you pay to have leverage so that you will give up the store.

 

[faceless007]

Eh, all it would take for the consumer to be "free" in this case is to just cough up the name of the store. It's not a big deal. The OP is bringing the ban entirely on himself at this point, he has the power to get unbanned and he refuses.

Either you haven't caught up with the thread or you're just assuming he's lying with no proof. From what we know, nobody at Microsoft has actually requested the name of the store. They requested an unedited pic of the receipt, with Skel1ingt0n says he provided. Whether or not that has the name of the store on it, and whether or not that has any bearing on the situation, is not clear.

Not that consumers should have to do that in the first place.

 

[Mechazawa]

I'm surprised people aren't trying to read into Stinkles' last post more. His implication is that other people banned early were unbanned, but, for whatever reason, Microsoft decided to stick with this one. I'm really interested in what their internal reason was.

Without throwing skelington under the bus here, maybe MS thought he did something else wrong warranting the ban once they looked into him?

Skelington, have you tried contacting their support forums and straight up asking for the exact reason of why you were banned? A mod will generally pop in there and give you a response for the reason.

I also don't really know why people are saying it's "too late" for him to contact Microsoft specifically and try to appeal the ban. It's an account, it didn't expire or anything. He should still try hitting that option up.

 

[blitzcloud]

The timeline just doesn't add up, though. OP is claiming to try and resolve the case. At the same time he's already sold the banned Xbox. He doesn't want to give up the store he got it from, at the same time he's saying he gave them a receipt showing the name of the store. It's like someone's lying about something, but as much as I might not like MS' customer support, I really see no reason why they would flat out lie and say "he hasn't provided us with what we asked" if he has.

The timeline makes sense. He was banned before 26/10. Bought new 360 (and possibly sold the other one afterwards) at black friday (around 23th November?)

Also, if the problem is users playing online before release date, why not just DISABLE ONLINE UNTIL RELEASE DATE. At one hand, MS is pretending this has to do with piracy and users unfairly playing online before release date. On the other hand, they're smacking end users to get them to fork over the names of stores breaking release date. It just stinks of corporate harassment.

I've been saying that quite a few times in this thread. Microsoft is acting in bad faith by using luring as a tactic (hell, they could be the ones who leak the game to begin with), and gunning down early-players not in whitelist. It's a witch hunt.


I just want to take a deep breath and remind everyone that the consumer guilt in this case is being too hyped for what the company hyped him up with:

He's a huge fan, can you blame him? Can you see him having a stolen copy, playing a pirated version, etc?

I also don't really know why people are saying it's "too late" for him to contact Microsoft specifically and try to appeal the ban. It's an account, it didn't expire or anything. He should still try hitting that option up.

Well, to begin with, if playing early was a CoC violation (that does not even exist btw), the gamertag being banned is a proper punishment. Console bans only come when there's a lot of banned profiles on it or has a hardware mod. In other words, they are calling him pirate.

 

[jamesinclair]

Would work for the customer in principle, but would also see the retailer named as the receipt would be required as evidence and then on public record.

MS could then go and wreak havoc on thema accordingly, removing their contracted right to sell MS products and even use MS software like windows operating systems that many businesses use. POS software often runs on windows and would be expensive for a small store to replace.

Sounds like the cheapest option would be for the store to give the OP some free MS points/store credit equal to the value of xbla games he lost since he is refusing to name them.

Most likely scenario, no one from ms, or some bottom rung rep shows up. Case closed in two minutes. Op gets lost value of 300 or whatever

 

[BruiserBear]

Microsoft can easily choose to block people from playing any game online early.

That fact alone means Microsoft are in the wrong here. If they don't want people playing Halo 4 early, the solution is staring them right in the face, but they chose not to utilize it.

 

[robotzombie]

Subjecting a customer to punishments resulting from your willful neglect of a contract you signed just to make a few dollars off that sale is indefensible. The defense of the store in this particular case is baffling to me.

You yourself are claiming it is the store that is willfully neglecting a contract. What should that in any way, shape, or form have to do with the end consumer? The answer is nothing. Which is the general working knowledge all parties would have had in this kind of interaction. The risk is on the store to take a chance at THEMSELVES being punished. At no point did anyone think or know that the person being sold the goods would or could be punished because that is an outlandish and ridiculous scenario, which is why everyone in this topic is talking about how disgusting it is that Microsoft did this. You just inventing some evil mom and pop store that is hanging consumers out to dry is nonsense.

 

[BruiserBear]

You yourself are claiming it is the store that is willfully neglecting a contract. What should that in any way, shape, or form have to do with the end consumer? The answer is nothing. Which is the general working knowledge all parties would have had in this kind of interaction. The risk is on the store to take a chance at THEMSELVES being punished. At no point did anyone think or know that the person being sold the goods would or could be punished because that is an outlandish and ridiculous scenario, which is why everyone in this topic is talking about how disgusting it is that Microsoft did this. You just inventing some evil mom and pop store that is hanging consumers out to dry is nonsense.

This thread going on for this long kinda blows my mind, because what you said is just so simple to understand, and yet so many people seem to be having trouble with it.

Spoiler

I said the same thing myself 10 pages back. Didn't seem to make a difference. :/

 

[blitzcloud]

This thread going on for this long kinda blows my mind, because what you said is just so simple to understand, and yet so many people seem to be having trouble with it.

But what he was talking about was a different matter. He's like: why not rat out a store that sold you out for a few dollars?

But his premise is wrong as the store didn't expect this, neither did he, and his morals don't allow him to rat them out for something he probably begged.

 

[robotzombie]

This thread going on for this long kinda blows my mind, because what you said is just so simple to understand, and yet so many people seem to be having trouble with it.

Spoiler

I said the same thing myself 10 pages back. Didn't seem to make a difference. :/

I know, I don't even know why I keep responding. It is just so fun to point out ridiculous statements and then watch as the people don't ever respond to what I say and end up quoting some other random user and repeat the same thing they said previously.

 

[DenogginizerOS]

You yourself are claiming it is the store that is willfully neglecting a contract. What should that in any way, shape, or form have to do with the end consumer? The answer is nothing. Which is the general working knowledge all parties would have had in this kind of interaction. The risk is on the store to take a chance at THEMSELVES being punished. At no point did anyone think or know that the person being sold the goods would or could be punished because that is an outlandish and ridiculous scenario, which is why everyone in this topic is talking about how disgusting it is that Microsoft did this. You just inventing some evil mom and pop store that is hanging consumers out to dry is nonsense.

I am curious as to what these retail contracts (I assume they exist) say about punishments and what the response of the store has been to what the OP has had happen. If they haven't been made aware, why not tell them? I stated in this thread a while ago that there should be a warning printed on the sticker that says playing this game before release could lead to the loss of an XBL account. I am not defending anyone. However, I am more curious about the loyalty of a customer to a Mom and Pop store and the lengths all sides would go to rectify the situation.

 

[BruiserBear]

I am curious as to what these retail contracts (I assume they exist) say about punishments and what the response of the store has been to what the OP has had happen. If they haven't been made aware, why not tell them? I stated in this thread a while ago that there should be a warning printed on the sticker that says playing this game before release could lead to the loss of an XBL account. I am not defending anyone. However, I am more curious about the loyalty of a customer to a Mom and Pop store and the lengths all sides would go to rectify the situation.

I can assure you nowhere in a retail license to sell Xbox games does it mention customers getting in trouble.

Also, Microsoft could just not allow you to play the game online early. No need for stickers.

 

[Uno Venova]

I know, I don't even know why I keep responding. It is just so fun to point out ridiculous statements and then watch as the people don't ever respond to what I say and end up quoting some other random user and repeat the same thing they said previously.

:lol This has been happening so many times in this thread it's sad.

 

[DenogginizerOS]

I can assure you nowhere in a retail license to sell Xbox games does it mention customers getting in trouble.

Also, Microsoft could just not allow you to play the game online early. No need for stickers.

I agree about just preventing games from being activated (I hate having a game paid for and preloaded on Steam, but I deal with it).

Speaking of these contracts, does anyone know what they actually say are the punishments? Does this Mom and Pop know the details? If there are substantial fines, I think the store should have bought this guy a new console and a copy of Halo 4 for his loyalty.

 

[dsister44]

Also, if the problem is users playing online before release date, why not just DISABLE ONLINE UNTIL RELEASE DATE. At one hand, MS is pretending this has to do with piracy and users unfairly playing online before release date. On the other hand, they're smacking end users to get them to fork over the names of stores breaking release date. It just stinks of corporate harassment, and the ugliest thing is that they're making you pay to have leverage so that you will give up the store.

What about reviewers? I'm pretty sure that's why they have the online up in the first place. So they can push a review of the multiplayer out