Support NeoGAF

[big_z]

Edit: And YOU keep the receipt, the vast majority of us don't. But you seem ok with making baseless claims and assumptions.

I always hold into the reciept until I see the game run once. I've had two games that weren't pressed correctly. Good luck exchanging that copy without a receipt.

He looked like more of a collector to me. He had like 5 copy's of halo 2. Who else would own more then one if they don't collect? I love how you just jump right to pirate biased on you being a snoop.

Never said he was a prirate but his play history shares similar traits. The whole receipt thing just sounds weird to me but who knows. Like I said he could be the victim here but you can go either way with this.

 

[jimi_dini]

If he did get a legit copy early he should have just played the single player and that's it.

The 360 doesn't record this and send it back later to Microsoft, when you take the console online? That's how it would work on PS3.

I can see his history of his skel1ngt0n account. He owns about 75 games. Around 50 of those games have zero achievements, his gamer score is only 4000ish which seems low for how long he's been gaming and how many games he owns.

A friend of mine has over 300 games on his trophy list. Most of them have not a single trophy unlocked. 53 games were completed till 100%. His trophy level is 17/11%. 8 platinums. Looks really weird, but I know that he never pirated anything at all. And compared to my completion rate (I got 101 games on my trophy list, 77 games completed till 100%, completion rate 91.89%, 75 platinums, trophy level 22/84%), it would look really suspicious.

Funnily he also told me that Alone in the Dark on PS3 wouldn't be that buggy or that bad, that's why I bought it. Guess what, his trophy list shows the game, but not a single trophy unlocked lol.

Spoiler

still he was right

 

[jadedm17]

You really don't get this do you? There IS NO GUILT OR INNOCENCE ASSOCIATED WITH THE END CUSTOMER IN REGARDS TO RELEASE DATES. It doesn't matter in the least bit that he knew or didn't know what the store was doing. Breaking street dates is not against the law, it is a personal agreement between the store and the supplier, if they break that agreement it is their responsibility, not the person who purchased the item.

Until said customer doesn't want to cooperate in turning proof of his role and help punish those responsible. Whats that, co-conspirating? Microsoft wants to punish someone [who in return "punished" them by buying another Xbox, lol] and if he's gonna protect those [who you say should be] reponsible then he's gonna recieve said punishment. Its all fair to me, this who'll "I'm not the guy you want so just forget the situation" attitude is nonsense.

 

[Littlegator]

Until said customer doesn't want to cooperate in turning proof of his role and help punish those responsible. Whats that, co-conspirating? Microsoft wants to punish someone [who in return "punished" them by buying another Xbox, lol] and if he's gonna protect those [who you say should be] reponsible then he's gonna recieve said punishment. Its all fair to me, this who'll "I'm not the guy you want so just forget the situation" attitude is nonsense.

Except there is no punishment for playing a game early.

TC was punished for piracy, which he is not guilty of.

 

[Surface of Me]

Not defending MS here, but do you guys really just throw away your receipts? I just slip mine in the case, as does everyone else I know.

Then again I also have Costanza wallet.

 

[Cheerilee]

Though that quotes not from Major Nelson aka Larry Hyrb.

Whoops. I should've been paying more attention.

 

[Littlegator]

Not defending MS here, but do you guys really just throw away your receipts? I just slip mine in the case, as does everyone else I know.

Then again I also have Costanza wallet.

I throw away the shit out of my receipts.

After over a decade of collecting, I've had to return exactly 0 games.

 

[onlyindreams]

I can see his history of his skel1ngt0n account. He owns about 75 games. Around 50 of those games have zero achievements, his gamer score is only 4000ish which seems low for how long he's been gaming and how many games he owns. Some of the games in the picture he posted such as portal 2, new Vegas, blood bowl, blops 2, shift, etc dont show up on his game history. Which means he took the packaging off but never booted them up, not even once. Odd no?

I've gotten a few games before release and always got a receipt and i always run the game to make sure it works before tossing the receipt. (I've seen improperly pressed discs before)

IMO considering how many games the OP owns but has never played I would say he's either an ocd collector or a pirate who got banned then ran out to buy a copy of halo 4 to save his account. Usually pirates will download a bunch of games, run them once to see if they work but never actually play them.

Not sure if anyone has brought this up(not going through the entire thread) but it's my 2cents. If the OP is innocent then the situation sucks but there's too much evidence saying otherwise.

Holy fuck. You can't see how someone would have a backlog?

 

[Crimsonclaw111]

Not defending MS here, but do you guys really just throw away your receipts? I just slip mine in the case, as does everyone else I know.

Then again I also have Costanza wallet.

I keep receipts for as long as the warranty runs out for any purchase.

 

[Wallach]

Do people really still believe this policy has anything to do with piracy?

The only time the effects of this policy have anything to do with piracy are when by chance one of the people banned in this manner does not get unbanned because they actually did pirate the game and can't provide "sufficient evidence". It isn't even intentional on their part that the policy banned a pirate in this case.

This policy exists only to penalize and dissuade people from playing a game on LIVE before certain dates. We know this because that is the only thing this policy directly affects. This policy acts as a deterrent (the ban) to something they do not want to happen (LIVE playing of a pre-street date title); whether you are a pirate or a customer is totally irrelevant to whether you are actioned against.

That means, as a deterrent, the effectiveness is gauged by the metric of how many people are deterred from performing the act that triggers it. The act that triggers this deterrence is not piracy, which means it does not engage piracy to begin with. Assuming perfect effectiveness of this policy, zero pirates or consumers would ever get banned because the fear of this action would cause them to delay playing the game even if they had early access to it. To serve as a deterrent to piracy, this action would have to penalize an action that would cause the fear of the deterrent to potentially not pirate the copy of the game; in our case, because both the pirated and non-pirated copy of the game fall under the same policy, there is no reason for this to occur. You have not given a pirate a single reason to not pirate, you've given him only a reason to not play his pirated game before a specific date.

Stop defending this policy on the idea that it is there to help Microsoft fight piracy. It does not serve to help them battle piracy in any meaningful way and doesn't exist to do that in the first place.

 

[eastmen]

The 360 doesn't record this and send it back later to Microsoft, when you take the console online? That's how it would work on PS3.

it does but it hardly matters at that point . I've been getting games and systems early for a long time. Never once got banned cause I multiplayer till after the game came out. I'm sure MS is only actively searching for online gamers playing those games before the dates and bans you while your playing or you get flagged while your playing.

 

[eastmen]

Do people really still believe this policy has anything to do with piracy?

The only time the effects of this policy have anything to do with piracy are when by chance one of the people banned in this manner does not get unbanned because they actually did pirate the game and can't provide "sufficient evidence". It isn't even intentional on their part that the policy banned a pirate in this case.

This policy exists only to penalize and dissuade people from playing a game on LIVE before certain dates. We know this because that is the only thing this policy directly affects. This policy acts as a deterrent (the ban) to something they do not want to happen (LIVE playing of a pre-street date title); whether you are a pirate or a customer is totally irrelevant to whether you are actioned against.

That means, as a deterrent, the effectiveness is gauged by the metric of how many people are deterred from performing the act that triggers it. The act that triggers this deterrence is not piracy, which means it does not engage piracy to begin with. Assuming perfect effectiveness of this policy, zero pirates or consumers would ever get banned because the fear of this action would cause them to delay playing the game even if they had early access to it. To serve as a deterrent to piracy, this action would have to penalize an action that would cause the fear of the deterrent to potentially not pirate the copy of the game; in our case, because both the pirated and non-pirated copy of the game fall under the same policy, there is no reason for this to occur. You have not given a pirate a single reason to not pirate, you've given him only a reason to not play his pirated game before a specific date.

Stop defending this policy on the idea that it is there to help Microsoft fight piracy. It does not serve to help them battle piracy in any meaningful way and doesn't exist to do that in the first place.

MS will fine companys thousands of dollars per game they sell early. Last I heard it was about five thousand dollars per instance. So if this store sold a 100 games that would bring in a lot of money for MS . That is why they want a real receipt . When I worked retail we would have customers come in saying they got a game early and we'd ask to take a copy of it so we can get permission to sell early. The trick was that we'd then report it to the publisher and get a reward. Normaly $50 bucks or so.

 

[Wallach]

MS will fine companys thousands of dollars per game they sell early. Last I heard it was about five thousand dollars per instance. So if this store sold a 100 games that would bring in a lot of money for MS . That is why they want a real receipt .

Yes, that is one of the side benefits of banning a normal consumer for them. The idea that other consumers are totally on board with this fucking disgusts me.

 

[Mr. Enigma]

So MS/343 won't unban him because he won't sell out the store that sold him the copy.

MS/343 once again proves they are full of goddamn fucking assholes. But then again, given the people involved, I'm not shocked at all.

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

I always hold into the reciept until I see the game run once. I've had two games that weren't pressed correctly. Good luck exchanging that copy without a receipt.




Never said he was a prirate but his play history shares similar traits. The whole receipt thing just sounds weird to me but who knows. Like I said he could be the victim here but you can go either way with this.

Did you even read my post? YOU hold the receipt, not all of us do. I've never in the hundreds of games I bought had one that wasn't pressed correctly so if it's in one piece when I open it, I chuck the receipt. Good luck indeed.

 

[JaseC]

So MS/343 won't unban him because he won't sell out the store that sold him the copy.

No, he's not being unbanned because the date of the receipt doesn't match the purported date of purchase. From Microsoft's point of view, he has no supporting evidence categorically stating that the copy he obtained prior to release was purchased legally.

 

[eastmen]

Yes, that is one of the side benefits of banning a normal consumer for them. The idea that other consumers are totally on board with this fucking disgusts me.

The only people we should be upset with are the people who knowingly sold him the game early and broke the contract they have with MS .

MS seems like they will let the guy get back his gamer tag if he simply gives them the real receipt

 

[Wallach]

The only people we should be upset with are the people who knowingly sold him the game early and broke the contract they have with MS .

MS seems like they will let the guy get back his gamer tag if he simply gives them the real receipt

No I rather think we should be upset with Microsoft for involving and punishing consumers for their retail distribution failures. It's Microsoft who should be upset with the people who knowingly sold him this game. I certainly don't care.

 

[onlyindreams]

The only people we should be upset with are the people who knowingly sold him the game early and broke the contract they have with MS .

Why the fuck should any of us be mad at the store? What the hell?

 

[mrklaw]

I've been getting a few PM's from people asking for my help for when they've banned by Microsoft for various dubious reasons. I nor my contact can help you, overturning one of these things seems pretty much impossible.

For further clarification on the OP's case, I have learned that Microsoft suspect the date of the receipt to be altered. From this my guess would be the OP's receipt shows the date of Halo's launch, but they know he had it earlier than that, thus they believe the copy he was playing prior to that was a pirated copy, and he just went out on launch day to buy a new copy and use that receipt. They don't seem to have any of the details, they just see the black and white evidence and base their ban off that.

So when Microsoft are asking for an 'unaltered receipt' they're really asking for a receipt that shows the actual purchase date -- which doesn't exist.

Did the OP post a pic of the disc earlier than the date on the receipt? If so, doesn't that provide at least some evidence that he didn't go into a store on release day and buy another copy, and that his original wasn't pirated? I doubt most pirated games are full colour printed DVDs with artwork etc.


Edit: yes,right in the first post dated 29th October.

 

[jcm]

I can see his history of his skel1ngt0n account. He owns about 75 games. Around 50 of those games have zero achievements, his gamer score is only 4000ish which seems low for how long he's been gaming and how many games he owns. Some of the games in the picture he posted such as portal 2, new Vegas, blood bowl, blops 2, shift, etc dont show up on his game history. Which means he took the packaging off but never booted them up, not even once. Odd no?

I've gotten a few games before release and always got a receipt and i always run the game to make sure it works before tossing the receipt. (I've seen improperly pressed discs before)

IMO considering how many games the OP owns but has never played I would say he's either an ocd collector or a pirate who got banned then ran out to buy a copy of halo 4 to save his account. Usually pirates will download a bunch of games, run them once to see if they work but never actually play them.

Not sure if anyone has brought this up(not going through the entire thread) but it's my 2cents. If the OP is innocent then the situation sucks but there's too much evidence saying otherwise.

Look, I'm not saying big_z is a woman beater, I'm just saying that frequently abusive men who beat their wives also make baseless piracy allegations. It's entirely possible that big_z is not an asshole and a woman beater, I just think it's odd that someone who isn't an asshole and a woman beater would accuse someone of being a pirate.

I'm not sure if anyone has brought this up, I just think it's worth discussing big_z's habit of beating his wife, that's all. If he has stopped beating her, then this whole situation is a real shame.

MS will fine companys thousands of dollars per game they sell early. Last I heard it was about five thousand dollars per instance. So if this store sold a 100 games that would bring in a lot of money for MS . That is why they want a real receipt . When I worked retail we would have customers come in saying they got a game early and we'd ask to take a copy of it so we can get permission to sell early. The trick was that we'd then report it to the publisher and get a reward. Normaly $50 bucks or so.

Microsoft can't fine anybody. If the retailer breaks their contract with MS, then MS can sue them, or refuse to do business with them in the future, but they cannot fine anyone.

 

[Uno Venova]

I can see his history of his skel1ngt0n account. He owns about 75 games. Around 50 of those games have zero achievements, his gamer score is only 4000ish which seems low for how long he's been gaming and how many games he owns. Some of the games in the picture he posted such as portal 2, new Vegas, blood bowl, blops 2, shift, etc dont show up on his game history. Which means he took the packaging off but never booted them up, not even once. Odd no?

I've gotten a few games before release and always got a receipt and i always run the game to make sure it works before tossing the receipt. (I've seen improperly pressed discs before)

IMO considering how many games the OP owns but has never played I would say he's either an ocd collector or a pirate who got banned then ran out to buy a copy of halo 4 to save his account. Usually pirates will download a bunch of games, run them once to see if they work but never actually play them.

Not sure if anyone has brought this up(not going through the entire thread) but it's my 2cents. If the OP is innocent then the situation sucks but there's too much evidence saying otherwise.

All we can do is laugh at this point.

 

[Infinite Justice]

It's sad that he bought a new Xbox. Basically rewarding Microsoft for banning you. Still makes me cringe when I read it. Skelington that was the worst thing you could have done.

and you know in a weird way it makes MS seem vindicated...

 

[blitzcloud]

It's sad that he bought a new Xbox. Basically rewarding Microsoft for banning you. Still makes me cringe when I read it. Skelington that was the worst thing you could have done.

You may reward MS by buying a new console. But with 60+ games, what else is appropriate ?

 

[TomServo]

No I rather think we should be upset with Microsoft for involving and punishing consumers for their retail distribution failures. It's Microsoft who should be upset with the people who knowingly sold him this game. I certainly don't care.

Exactly.

There is no onus on the consumer to help a company sort out problems in their distribution channels.

Stockholm syndrome runs rampant on this forum.

 

[jimi_dini]

You may reward MS by buying a new console. But with 60+ games, what else is appropriate ?

60+ games -> http://www.ebay.com/

 

[TomServo]

You may reward MS by buying a new console. But with 60+ games, what else is appropriate ?

Figure out the MSRP of every Live-enabled game, every piece of DLC associated with the account, and every piece of hardware whose functionality is diminished because of the ban and head to small claims. Better yet, find an eager lawyer and start working on a class action.

 

[Zoe]

Better yet, find an eager lawyer and start working on a class action.

Supreme Court says lol.

 

[Syriel]

I think you hit one one of the more important factors that hasn't been brought up much. Even if a person is sold a copy early by a store, MICROSOFT ALREADY GOT THEIR MONEY FOR THE GAME. The sixty dollars you spend to buy a game is not money for Microsoft, its money for the store. If the store has games to sell you early, its because they already bought those games from Microsoft.

not to be too up in the nitty gritty, normally stores get games (and other product) on credit terms, usually Net 90. They don't pay for product up front. Product that isn't sold, is sent back. If there is a MSRP price drop, the manufacturer eats the cost, not the retailer.

I'd still be fascinated to know if these retail/distribution agreements are legal in nature or not, because if they're actual legal agreements this becomes a whole different ballgame.

They're legal, binding contracts. Breaking a street date usually triggers a pre-set liquidated damages provision. aka What folks in here have been referring to as a fine.

You really don't get this do you? There IS NO GUILT OR INNOCENCE ASSOCIATED WITH THE END CUSTOMER IN REGARDS TO RELEASE DATES. It doesn't matter in the least bit that he knew or didn't know what the store was doing. Breaking street dates is not against the law, it is a personal agreement between the store and the supplier, if they break that agreement it is their responsibility, not the person who purchased the item.

The only nonsense is you insinuating that the OP getting a game before release is grounds for him to be banned even if it's a legitimate disc. It isn't. There is no law that states stores cannot sell the game early. Therefore there is nothing illegal about this unless the disc was pirated.

If you know about the street date (as the OP did) and you encourage the store to sell you a copy early (as the OP did) you can find yourself in violation of the law.

Intentionally interfering with a contract between two other parties is not legal. Now you're not likely to get sued over small things (companies aren't going to waste the resources unless you cost them millions), but that doesn't change the law.

Here is a layman's summary of the concept:
http://www.rotlaw.com/legal-library/what-is-tortious-interference-with-contract/

Op needs to just take this to small calms court, MS can't use 100 lawyers to drown him in paper work. Just go In make your case about street dates not applying to customers and hope for the best.

Edit: I would also go back to the store and get a HAND WRITTEN receipt of the day he bought it. Hand written is legal and MS can't do shit about it.

If OP is serious about getting it resolved, he should write to Microsoft's arbitration department. The information is listed in the ToS and they can do things that regular CS simply cannot do. It does require writing up a formal letter and including details of the situation, but all of that information is detailed out in the ToS.

 

[Satchel]

I get games and systems early all the time thanks to having a few friends at various retail stores. But the golden rule is to never take them online since I could get banned and my friends can loose their job.


If he did get a legit copy early he should have just played the single player and that's it.

Yep, this is what I did when I got CoD4 early back in 07. Got it a day early from a friend in retail, unplugged the 360 and just played single payer.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

Stumbled across this thread this weekend it made me chuckle:


http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=357850

 

[drkOne]

OP gets screwed over by MS pretty hard, and goes out to buy a new console. Seriously disappointed.
You really deserve to be played like you were.

 

[onlyindreams]

Stumbled across this thread this weekend it made me chuckle:


http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=357850

looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool

 

[TheBryanJZX90]

Supreme Court says lol.

haha, so true

 

[TheBaldEmperor]

Stumbled across this thread this weekend it made me chuckle:


http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=357850

No way. Hahahahaha!

 

[onlyindreams]

lol guys look at this thread

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=504411

Fucking horrible

 

[RobotMafia]

Stumbled across this thread this weekend it made me chuckle:


http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=357850

Amazing. What a fucking joke this whole thing is.

 

[Wedge7]

Stumbled across this thread this weekend it made me chuckle:


http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=357850

That customer service!

"No fucking around. No questions. No condescension."

Yea, that sure would have been nice

 

[JABEE]

Stumbled across this thread this weekend it made me chuckle:


http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=357850

If only Microsoft's customer service worked that way. Too bad OP is still banned for using a legitimate copy of the game.

 

[Seventy5]

It's sad that he bought a new Xbox. Basically rewarding Microsoft for banning you. Still makes me cringe when I read it. Skelington that was the worst thing you could have done.

I read his entire first post with all the edits, and then I saw at the end that he bought a new 360. I'm typing this with one hand because I can't get my palm off of my face. I had 50+ 360 games when my last one stopped reading disks. I got rid of every last game & accessory, not one more bohica from me.

 

[Darkmakaimura]

lol guys look at this thread

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=504411

Fucking horrible

Why are my favorite science fiction franchises getting such bad rap this year.

Edit: A bit off topic but Stinkles is right about Amazon. Got a Kindle Fire HD last night and had to call support for questions a couple times. They have excellent CS. Bravo!

 

[alphaNoid]

No, he's not being unbanned because the date of the receipt doesn't match the purported date of purchase. From Microsoft's point of view, he has no supporting evidence categorically stating that the copy he obtained prior to release was purchased legally.

This

 

[Cheerilee]

This

What does "was purchased legally" have to do with anything?

- Microsoft bans people indiscriminately on the assumption that they're playing pirated ROMs.

- Microsoft says that they're not banning people for getting the game early, just for piracy. If you have a genuine retail copy of the game, you are safe/the ban will be overturned.

- The store didn't give the OP a self-incriminating receipt. There is no receipt to prove that the OP bought the game early, but there are pictures of a genuine retail copy of the game which were posted to this thread well before the game was supposed to be available.


Microsoft should ban you for piracy, and then when it's proven that you're not a pirate (because that's where the burden of proof rightfully belongs, on the accused), MS should just stick with the ban, because for all they know, you ran red lights on your trip to the store. And you can't prove otherwise.

 

[Dr.Guru of Peru]

Just stumbled upon this thread, and wow. This is pretty outrageous. And then he went out and got ANOTHER Xbox? Jesus christ, why reward the company that just fucked you over with more cash? Absolutely insane.

 

[DarkJC]

What does "was purchased legally" have to do with anything?

- Microsoft bans people indiscriminately on the assumption that they're playing pirated ROMs.

- Microsoft says that they're not banning people for getting the game early, just for piracy. If you have a genuine retail copy of the game, you are safe/the ban will be overturned.

- The store didn't give the OP a self-incriminating receipt. There is no receipt to prove that the OP bought the game early, but there are pictures of a genuine retail copy of the game which were posted to this thread well before the game was supposed to be available.


Microsoft should ban you for piracy, and then when it's proven that you're not a pirate (because that's where the burden of proof rightfully belongs, on the accused), MS should just stick with the ban, because for all they know, you ran red lights on your trip to the store. And you can't prove otherwise.

Exactly, this is all wishy washy. They know he has a legit copy of the game, they're trying to get him to rat out the store that sold it to him early, and are using his account and banned console as leverage. Fuck that, and fuck punishing the consumer for errors made in Microsoft's supply chain.

 

[Perkel]

backward gaf at it's best.

Dude bought game. It's not pirated game clearly from photos. No damage was done to microsoft.

And yet they ban dude because he played game before official release date ? Soryy that is backward and shame on gaf users for even giving rights to MS for it.

Most of people don't care about receipts (for games) i bought ton of games and i always just throw them off to trash-bin.

It's just a fucking game not engine of ambulance which rescue people from death. Who cares if he can play it a bit before release date. It's shop fault not end user. What if some normal family buy game from shop like that ? "Fucking thiefs and liers" we should call them.

A am amused how people can even resonate with MS side on that.

 

[legacyzero]

Yeah this is going a bit over board. Its not piracy if the player owns a physical copy. MS should just let it go, honestly.

Why risk all the negative PR and trouble over something this clear?

EDIT: unless he like.... STOLE that physical copy. In that case, you should be banned from more than just LIVE.

 

[Omikaru]

Yeah this is going a bit over board. Its not piracy if the player owns a physical copy. MS should just let it go, honestly.

Why risk all the negative PR and trouble over something this clear?

EDIT: unless he like.... STOLE that physical copy. In that case, you should be banned from more than just LIVE.

I think playing a stolen legitimate copy of a game is not within MS's purview, nor should it be. That's for law enforcement to deal with...

But yeah, all told, this is BS. This ban cannot be defended rationally.

 

[Kuro Madoushi]

Pretty much. I throw receipts away all the time. He's proved himself, it's just MS that has dropped the ball here.

 

[Perkel]

Yeah this is going a bit over board. Its not piracy if the player owns a physical copy. MS should just let it go, honestly.

Why risk all the negative PR and trouble over something this clear?

EDIT: unless he like.... STOLE that physical copy. In that case, you should be banned from more than just LIVE.

You have a proof or MS that he stole game ? Sorry but without it it's "if" scenario.

I'm pretty sure that store selling copy before release date is more than believable than dude is "thief" which is very very very very low chance.