Microsoft Stands Firm on Xbox Live Bans

[Gildan Bladeborn]

- snip -

I am extremely relieved to see there is a few people here who have some common sense to see this situation is not clear cut.

Thanks, sometimes I'm convinced I'd have more luck arguing with inanimate objects, heh.

Before I get the "terms of service" contract thing thrown back at me let me say that I think the ToS contract is BS. Just imagine that we are speaking in terms of what is morally right, people who upgraded their consoles in no violation of the law should not be punished so harshly by MS for not doing things their way. Even when it is in violation of the law does not make it wrong either, take MW2 for example, Activision took away the dedicated servers with no good reason and said deal with it. Somebody wrote the code that Activision wouldnt and now people who buy MW2 in a shop and crack it themselves should have every right to play it on a dediacted server, I'm not talking about pirates who dl and crack, I mean retail copies with increased functionality. How can people look at the ToS contract like its the 10 commandments, it is not infallible and its sole purpose is to cover MS's ass why should you defend it?

I put money into my bank. My bank doesn't give me as high of an interest rate that I would like. So I hack their system and adjust my rate from .5% to 10% to increase the value of my personal account. What you are describing, while not on the same level, amounts to the same thing

you may not like it, but it is still illegal

I take it you are refering to the MW2 example? I did not ask if it was illegal, as you say i plainly stated it is. I asked if it was immoral, if you hack the bank, the bank loses money and the service is diminished, if you buy MW2, crack it and play it on a dedicated server there is no economic loss. Developers get paid for their hard work, you get to play how you wanted, wheres the problem?

Well said - clearly there isn't one. It's a rather telling sign when your opponent in a debate doesn't actually understand what an equivalent analogy is (hint: not what you just used Jak!). Banning modders who are not pirating games or cheating online is simply punishing savvy consumers who fixed problems with your poorly designed product or choose not to buy your overpriced peripherals. Installing your own HD or fan isn't stealing from Microsoft or anyone else folks, but it's just as bannable as an offense as hacking your console to cheat in online games is according to the TOS - the issue is whether or not that's a morally reprehensible things to do. I would argue that it is, as would Epitome.

 

[Epitome]

Before I get the "terms of service" contract thing thrown back at me let me say that I think the ToS contract is BS. Just imagine that we are speaking in terms of what is morally right, people who upgraded their consoles in no violation of the law should not be punished so harshly by MS for not doing things their way. Even when it is in violation of the law does not make it wrong either, take MW2 for example, Activision took away the dedicated servers with no good reason and said deal with it. Somebody wrote the code that Activision wouldnt and now people who buy MW2 in a shop and crack it themselves should have every right to play it on a dediacted server, I'm not talking about pirates who dl and crack, I mean retail copies with increased functionality. How can people look at the ToS contract like its the 10 commandments, it is not infallible and its sole purpose is to cover MS's ass why should you defend it?

I put money into my bank. My bank doesn't give me as high of an interest rate that I would like. So I hack their system and adjust my rate from .5% to 10% to increase the value of my personal account. What you are describing, while not on the same level, amounts to the same thing

you may not like it, but it is still illegal

I take it you are refering to the MW2 example? I did not ask if it was illegal, as you say i plainly stated it is. I asked if it was immoral, if you hack the bank, the bank loses money and the service is diminished, if you buy MW2, crack it and play it on a dedicated server there is no economic loss. Developers get paid for their hard work, you get to play how you wanted, wheres the problem?

no economic loss that you know of; how do they pay to maintain their servers? is it just from sales, or does the simple act of playing it on their servers generate some money from a contractual agreement that IW made with another company? If too many people jump ship does that mean that they can no longer afford to maintain the servers, and then have to cut the service to the people who are playing the game legitly on IW servers?

I know this is a far fetched example, as there would have to be a hell of a lot of people jumping ship, but the point remains

If that is the best agruement available for why Activision did not want dedicated servers then I can see why PC gamers were pissed. Do you not think thought that if so many people were jumping ship to play on dedicated servers then it was Activisions short sightedness that drove them to it? In this example should Activision be given the moral highground to cut out what are obviously important parts of gameplay for people presumably to save money because the people jumping ship are "pirates", or do those modders taking it upon themselves to break the law to bring the game to the state they want it in after paying Actvision the asking price? To me the highground morally here would belong to the modders.

 

[Laxman9292]

Easy to say when the law prohibits setting up a competing Xbox online service, and MS would crush anybody who tried. If that was allowed then i would say yes your right find somewhere else to go. But MS its our way or no way and taht is morally wrong. In your situation surely there should be two versions of games one with teh multiplayer excluded for people who dont want to pay for teh service they wont use?

Not at all. why should MS be morally obliged to let others provide a competing online service for their console. A restaurant chain (Microsoft) does not allow a hamburger stand (a competing online service) to operate inside the building owned by them (Xbox 360). Why should ms be obliged to provide that service then? if someone wants to set up a competing online service they better pony up a heft sum to MS (which i highly doubt would even consider regardless of price) or create their own console where they can do whatever the fuck they want, but until then they need to stop bitching because MS can do whatever they want and apply any rules they feel like (within reason) on their console.

 

[lazy_bum]

snip

This user is unfortunatley unavailable at this moment as is in no way being kept in a secure underground facility for 're-orientation'

(Awesome, havn't seen nucklear power in ages.)

 

[Vanguard_Ex]

And so they should. It was those peoples' fault for breaking the law due to their own impatience in the first place.
Also, my suspension has lifted!

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/02/01/mexican_wave_wideweb__470x309,0.jpg

 

[Epitome]

Easy to say when the law prohibits setting up a competing Xbox online service, and MS would crush anybody who tried. If that was allowed then i would say yes your right find somewhere else to go. But MS its our way or no way and taht is morally wrong. In your situation surely there should be two versions of games one with teh multiplayer excluded for people who dont want to pay for teh service they wont use?

Not at all. why should MS be morally obliged to let others provide a competing online service for their console. A restaurant chain (Microsoft) does not allow a hamburger stand (a competing online service) to operate inside the building owned by them (Xbox 360). Why should ms be obliged to provide that service then? if someone wants to set up a competing online service they better pony up a heft sum to MS (which i highly doubt would even consider regardless of price) or create their own console where they can do whatever the fuck they want, but until then they need to stop bitching because MS can do whatever they want and apply any rules they feel like (within reason) on their console.

Its that last bracket there that I disagree with you on the most, the wthin reason , is banning somebody who installed a better HDD reasonable, banning somebody who put in a better fan so it would actually live long enought to be useful reasonable?

 

[Bigeyez]

Good for Microsoft. People who break the Terms that they agreed to need to be punished. XBL is no different than an internet forum like The Escapist. You break the rules, you get your ass beat.

Banning somebody withour refunding the money they paid is wrong though. sure they have the right to go your no longer a memebr, but they have to refund membership fees. Remember modding an xbox is not illegal, using the mods to do illegal things is. A terms of service contract does not give M$ the right to steal.

Actually modifying your xbox in ANY way is against the ToS. Heres the copy/paste from Xbox Live's ToS.

You agree that you are using only authorized software and hardware to access the Service, that your software and hardware have not been modified in any unauthorized way

They CAN and SHOULD ban anyone breaking their Terms of Service, regardless of whatever circumstance people try and make up.

 

[Meado]

How could anyone believe they have the right to demand their money back from this?

Imagine for a moment that you hired a maid to look after your house, paying in advance. If you then started verbally abusing her or stealing her stuff, and she decided to quit, would it be fair to demand the wages you'd already paid her back? Hell, she would be well within her rights to sue your arse off. You should be glad she's simply cutting all ties with you, you greedy fuck.
And because there are people out there who won't realise it, that was a metaphor. Microsoft is your maid.

That covers the XBL account, but now you're pissed that you can't play COD:MW2 online, despite that being the whole reason you bought the game in the first place. Well, I hope you kept the reciept, because that's the only legal route you have to get your money back for it. If the store you bought it from doesn't do refunds, sucks to be you, because that's your own damned fault.

 

[Jak The Great]

Before I get the "terms of service" contract thing thrown back at me let me say that I think the ToS contract is BS. Just imagine that we are speaking in terms of what is morally right, people who upgraded their consoles in no violation of the law should not be punished so harshly by MS for not doing things their way. Even when it is in violation of the law does not make it wrong either, take MW2 for example, Activision took away the dedicated servers with no good reason and said deal with it. Somebody wrote the code that Activision wouldnt and now people who buy MW2 in a shop and crack it themselves should have every right to play it on a dediacted server, I'm not talking about pirates who dl and crack, I mean retail copies with increased functionality. How can people look at the ToS contract like its the 10 commandments, it is not infallible and its sole purpose is to cover MS's ass why should you defend it?

I put money into my bank. My bank doesn't give me as high of an interest rate that I would like. So I hack their system and adjust my rate from .5% to 10% to increase the value of my personal account. What you are describing, while not on the same level, amounts to the same thing

you may not like it, but it is still illegal

I take it you are refering to the MW2 example? I did not ask if it was illegal, as you say i plainly stated it is. I asked if it was immoral, if you hack the bank, the bank loses money and the service is diminished, if you buy MW2, crack it and play it on a dedicated server there is no economic loss. Developers get paid for their hard work, you get to play how you wanted, wheres the problem?

no economic loss that you know of; how do they pay to maintain their servers? is it just from sales, or does the simple act of playing it on their servers generate some money from a contractual agreement that IW made with another company? If too many people jump ship does that mean that they can no longer afford to maintain the servers, and then have to cut the service to the people who are playing the game legitly on IW servers?

I know this is a far fetched example, as there would have to be a hell of a lot of people jumping ship, but the point remains

If that is the best agruement available for why Activision did not want dedicated servers then I can see why PC gamers were pissed. Do you not think thought that if so many people were jumping ship to play on dedicated servers then it was Activisions short sightedness that drove them to it? In this example should Activision be given the moral highground to cut out what are obviously important parts of gameplay for people presumably to save money because the people jumping ship are "pirates", or do those modders taking it upon themselves to break the law to bring the game to the state they want it in after paying Actvision the asking price? To me the highground morally here would belong to the modders.

In That respect though, modding is a privilege, not a right. There are companies that applaud the mod community (blizzard, Valve) and others that won't stand for it (in this case MS and Activision) neither stance is wrong, but they do make it perfectly clear what is and isn't tolerated. How does a moral high ground belong to the guys who disrespect the rules and laws the developers or manufactures put in place?

This isn't to say that I agree with Activision's decision, but the best way to tell them that you don't like something is to not buy it, and given the sales that MW2 brought in there obviously weren't enough people who cared enough about dedicated servers to not buy the game. I doubt they're going to go back to dedicated servers

 

[Hyperactiveman]

This is ridiculous.

I know people who got banned for just getting their Xbox fixed, even though it was by people who weren't Microsoft why the hell should we get it sent away if it just to happen to RROD outside the warranty. Also some people only mod their Xbox to stop the bloody disc reading errors. They still buy the games legit and play fair online.

Microsoft wouldn't even let the users redeem themselves, it's true you could just make a new account on a new Xbox and get back in so why not just un-ban the account when they recover it? Nobody should have to deal with being banned for having to deal with your crappy hardware/software problems Fag-rosoft you lousy excuse for a service provider!

And another thing... How in the hell does this help Microsoft make money?... No-one would even think about buying a new console and creating a new account basically meaning starting all over again just to get their gamerscore back to the 30,000 or so amount they had before. Microsoft was still getting Xbox live subscriptions and DLC money from them.

Incidentally I'm now a PS3 gamer... You lose out big time matey!

 

[Laxman9292]

Easy to say when the law prohibits setting up a competing Xbox online service, and MS would crush anybody who tried. If that was allowed then i would say yes your right find somewhere else to go. But MS its our way or no way and taht is morally wrong. In your situation surely there should be two versions of games one with teh multiplayer excluded for people who dont want to pay for teh service they wont use?

Not at all. why should MS be morally obliged to let others provide a competing online service for their console. A restaurant chain (Microsoft) does not allow a hamburger stand (a competing online service) to operate inside the building owned by them (Xbox 360). Why should ms be obliged to provide that service then? if someone wants to set up a competing online service they better pony up a heft sum to MS (which i highly doubt would even consider regardless of price) or create their own console where they can do whatever the fuck they want, but until then they need to stop bitching because MS can do whatever they want and apply any rules they feel like (within reason) on their console.

Its that last bracket there that I disagree with you on the most, the wthin reason , is banning somebody who installed a better HDD reasonable, banning somebody who put in a better fan so it would actually live long enought to be useful reasonable?

Yes, because it changes the makeup of the console past the original design, which MS has patents on and laws protecting against all infringement. Therefore you buy the product that they intend to sell and if you alter it do so at your own risk but have no misconceptions that you are in the right, because no matter how badly you believe that MS still has the law on their side, and i fully back that.

 

[CAW4]

"MS make PLENTY of money off teh games they develop" So what you're saying it that they should be punished for making too much money? And don't try to bullshit me with "DATS NOT WAT I SAID!!!", it might as well be, and arguing that is like arguing that saying 'There will be consequences if you don't do this' isn't a threat.
"piracy and stealing are not interchangeable words"? Are you fucking retarded? Yes they are, just as larceny and theft are the same, piracy and stealing are. If you even try to defend that you're probably going to be put on a depopulation list.
And saying that Microsoft should pay them back is like getting caught burglarizing someones house and suing them so that they have to pay for everything you bought for the crime.
Also, in your case you honestly should 'get out of life,' here's something to help you with that. [http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e220/gratefulra/suicide_gun.jpg]

You are the perfect example of everything that is wrong with your mentality. No i did not say MS should be punished for making too much money, nor at any point did I endorse or support piracy.i merely recognised that there is a difference between the two. larceny is a form of theft btw, where as piracy is not. To steal you must deprive somebody of the economic benefit of something, if you pirate a game you were never going to buy then you caused no economic drain on the games owner. thus there are distinctions drawn up and copyright infringement is dealt with seperately throught the courts than with theft, because they are different.

Also your mistaken again, I do not believe that MS should refund the pirates who were abusing their service. I think that MS should refund the modders who broke no law and paid for all their gaming who were caught alongside pirates in the wave of bans. do you understand that being a modder does not automatically make you a pirate?

Can someone please kill this pile of shit? I'm not kidding, really kill him.

 

[Doug]

Seriously, someone explain to me what modding the console is, are we talking about cracking it so it plays pirated games, or just changing housing of the console? If its just changing the housing I see nothing wrong with that, if its cracking the console to play pirated games I hope the ban-hammer hit those suckers hard.

Changing the housing, technically, a modification, and you might not get a free repair of your box if you send it in to get rid of RROD. BUT in this case, that sort of modification wouldn't be detected by the scan. Hence, I believe its 99.9% people who modded the console for pirated games, 0.08% mistakely banned, and 0.02% 'Home brew' consoles.

 

[ultimatechance]

Yeah it kind of was a smart, yet dick move to ban the users during the week of MW2. But all the people who got banned (including me) deserved what they got. Was certainly a smart, but greedy business decision in terms of the timing though.

 

[KittywifaMohawk]

Is this much of a shock to someone?
If it is, it isn't to me. I knew Microsoft wouldn't budge with the timing of the bans, I knew they weren't scared or anything.

 

[Lovelocke]

While I'm sure those with banned consoles would disagree, "them's the rules". You bought the hardware, you can burn it in a fire for all they care, but if its in the terms of service for support/warranty and all that to leave the console as sold, then that's that. It's like getting pissed off the Plexiglas sunroof you installed in the garage in your car leaks and should be the automaker's responsibility to fix it.

 

[kaiZie]

I understand banning for pirated games, but I don't see any problem with back-ups of games, if your store bought copy, of say, MW2 get's scratched then you have to buy another, but if you have a back up for a game you bought I see no reason why you can't play on. Obviously I see that there is no way for M$ to say what is and what isnt a back up, but making a game back up is no different to backing up files on your PC, if anything, it's just common sence.

What does everyone else think?

 

[Frank_Sinatra_]

Good for Microsoft. People who break the Terms that they agreed to need to be punished. XBL is no different than an internet forum like The Escapist. You break the rules, you get your ass beat.

Now if only we could apply the same rules with government versus corporations. You screw up, the company gets the hammer from the government. I may be a republican but I know you don't reward companies who abuse the system and society.

Care to elaborate more on that?
My recent getting off work and class is having detrimental effects on my brain.

 

[Epitome]

Yes, because it changes the makeup of the console past the original design, which MS has patents on and laws protecting against all infringement. Therefore you buy the product that they intend to sell and if you alter it do so at your own risk but have no misconceptions that you are in the right, because no matter how badly you believe that MS still has the law on their side, and i fully back that.

Well taking the fan as an example you back MS right to mass produce and sell a product that due to its poor design will have its life expectancy cut, but you dont support the right of the consumer to fix said problem himself because MS offer no legitimate way to do so? Its not illegal at all to mod btw, you can slap a new HDD and all on and not break a single copyright law. Its MS's in house rules that say you cant improve their poor design because they say so and if you disagree they will take your multiplayer away.

Can someone please kill this pile of shit? I'm not kidding, really kill him.

Can you please put on your big boy pants and think of something constructive to add to the debate before you post please or are you cranky its past your bedtime, juvenile.

In That respect though, modding is a privilege, not a right. There are companies that applaud the mod community (blizzard, Valve) and others that won't stand for it (in this case MS and Activision) neither stance is wrong, but they do make it perfectly clear what is and isn't tolerated. How does a moral high ground belong to the guys who disrespect the rules and laws the developers or manufactures put in place?

This isn't to say that I agree with Activision's decision, but the best way to tell them that you don't like something is to not buy it, and given the sales that MW2 brought in there obviously weren't enough people who cared enough about dedicated servers to not buy the game. I doubt they're going to go back to dedicated servers

The moral highground belongs to them because of the publisher abusing their copyright, teh dedicated servers are just an example of it. While it may not have been sufficent deterrent to stop sales they were much lower on pc than on xbox or ps3. What I mean is here is a bunch of people who want to do something there way, at no measureable cost or harm to anybody, and along comes Activsion, says its our way or no way? Thats not right at all, the best way to tell Activision was not the boycott, thats no soloution for either party pc gamers dont get MW2, Activision loses sales and then maybe next time they dont do it or maybe they dont bother with the pc port? I mean just because the devs and publishers make the rules does not mean they are morally infallible, their rules are geared towards maximising profit, a good goal for a company, but the methods they use as with the MS bans are definatly reprehensible.