950°
Submitted by stickskills 471d ago | news

Microsoft is banning consoles over ‘GTA V’ leaks

StickSkills writes, "The internet has been a little crazy over the past 24 hours, as a GTA V leak has been spreading images and videos from the game. While Grand Theft Auto V doesn't release for five days, Microsoft is making sure to ban the consoles of those gamers who are playing a leaked version of the game and spreading content." (Grand Theft Auto V, Xbox 360)

Alternative Sources
« 1 2 3 »
Lukas_Japonicus  +   471d ago
Serves the dummies right for going online while playing it.

Im not saying they don't have the right to play it but it should seem pretty obvious not to go online while playing a game that doesn't come out until next week. If you are stupid enough to do so then you deserve the ban.
#1 (Edited 471d ago ) | Agree(106) | Disagree(50) | Report | Reply
nick309  +   471d ago | Well said
The game isnt even on torrents yet. Banning someone who bought a legit copy is the weirdest thing i heard
Mystogan  +   471d ago
These are probably not legit copies. Microsoft can tell the difference. As they did with Halo 4.
Blacktric  +   471d ago
"These are probably not legit copies."

A guy already got banned for playing the game early. And he had a legit copy. The truth is, Microsoft doesn't care. Just like they did with other early release bans.

http://vinebox.co/u/wiTSAJp...
#1.1.2 (Edited 471d ago ) | Agree(93) | Disagree(13) | Report
Hatsune-Miku  +   471d ago | Well said
Microsoft is banning consoles to garner more xbox 360 sales like always

Why would the company ban anyone when they havent a clue how someone aquired the game.

I just checked my PS4 order and its still good. Ps4 day one . I just did a peggle 2 jump in my mind
#1.1.3 (Edited 471d ago ) | Agree(61) | Disagree(46) | Report
YNWA96  +   471d ago
Hatsune, I am sure you knew in your mind what you wanted to say... I think...
Hydrolex  +   471d ago
They can still track you with the achievements !

but yea, they can't ban if you have a legit copy... It's not your fault
#1.1.5 (Edited 471d ago ) | Agree(28) | Disagree(1) | Report
The_Con-Sept  +   471d ago
If you are able to get your hands on a legit copy early then you should not be banned. If people are truly obtaining legit copies of a game early and Microsoft is truly baking people for the sake of playing it before its street date then shame on them. However if it is a hacked version...... Repossess their PC along with it. Stupid pc elitist torrenters.
Vaud-Villian  +   471d ago
If they banned early use of retail discs I would know 2 reviewer friends who would have banned consoles right now. There has to be a red flag beyond simply early retail disc use.
Dee_91  +   471d ago
What the hell.If I managed to get a legit copy early and my console got banned I would be beyond pissed.
XB1_PS4  +   471d ago
I ordered mine online, and it said it's guaranteed delivered by the 17th. If I get it early I'm playing it. Why the hell would I stare at a game that I bought, when I can play it. Uploading videos about it is a different story.
Withdreday  +   471d ago
If you get it early, just sign off while playing until the 17th, or just buy it on the PS3 instead.

Your choice.
spektical  +   471d ago
agreed. Banning users who bought the game should not be banned. Very counter intuitive. The culprit are your stores. Go after them.
Ps4Console  +   471d ago
There are Pirate gaming sites all over who have there Xbox's Jtagged & the game these idiots spoil the whole industry for us all .
SDIII  +   471d ago
Actually it is now on torrents for 360...
Ritsujun  +   471d ago
LOOOOOL @ Microsofie, Xbosh, and Xbosh360.
mark134uk  +   471d ago
it is on most torrent sites now i know ppl that have dll it and playing it on 360
Linwelin  +   471d ago
uh yes it is, the 360 version is at least, and people complain about PC.
RyanBurnsRed  +   467d ago
"The Rockstar policy on posting copyrighted material from its games is very clear:

Pre-Release Footage: No pre-release leaked footage of any kind: Any posting of in-game footage from leaked copies of the game prior to its official release date will be taken down, regardless of how the game was obtained. This includes “early unboxing” videos."

http://www.thesixthaxis.com...

Also: http://i.imgur.com/8wv276i....
abzdine  +   471d ago
MS are stupid. the guys got the game before time it's not like they stole it.
christocolus  +   471d ago
how old are you?it clearly states leaked version...even rockstar isnt happy with the leak.pirated copies are been replicated as we speak..that game costs so much to develop and rockstar cant loose income to pirates if they are to break even. piracy is killing the industry.studios are closing up.games cost more to make and yet gamers keep expecting more from next gen but yet do not want costs to rise...dude grow up..this was one of the reasons ms wanted drm but gamers refused now they are banning the guys from playing pirated copies and you say ms is stupid....sorry dude but it definitly aint ms who is stupid here. developers actually like the fact that ms has such strict policies against leaked and pirated copies it is actually in thier favor and that of the industry...
#1.2.1 (Edited 471d ago ) | Agree(32) | Disagree(49) | Report
limewax  +   471d ago
@christocolus

So where does it say pirated? Oh wait it doesn't since there isn't a single torrent out there for the damn game yet. These are leaked LEGIT copies which a number of people managed to get their hands on in the past 24 hours.

If you wanna use that as some sort of excuse for giving up ownership of things you pay for I suggest you reassess your priorities
#1.2.2 (Edited 471d ago ) | Agree(41) | Disagree(12) | Report
Blacktric  +   471d ago
"how old are you"

I could ask you the same thing since you seem too fond of jumping the gun to insult someone.

http://vinebox.co/u/wiTSAJp...

Legit copy. Banned.

Next time, get your facts straight before you decide to go on an ego trip.
#1.2.3 (Edited 471d ago ) | Agree(33) | Disagree(10) | Report
christocolus  +   471d ago
@limewax

this has nothing to do with priorities..the article clearly states that rockstar has a policy against what these guys did and ms acted on that ..this hapened with halo on 360 too.it was leaked before release...the game wasnt even on torrentz yet but illegal copies were made and being sold openly in some territories...i dont blame ms or rockstar for pushing this sort of policy..the devs need to be protected too.ms usually runs authentification programmes through their network. if these guys have a genuine case then they can take it up with ms and rockstar besides this action will help deter others...

@blacktrik

but its ok to bash ms and call them stupid right? you guys amaze me..rockstar has a policy against what those guys did.your link even dtates it...violated terms of use...rockstar are actually not the only devs who have such policies..google it up before attacking ..banning their consoles imo was actually the easier way out for them.ms did them a favor.
..
marcelliuss1  +   471d ago
@abzdine....No Microsoft is not stupid. It says it in R* policies that they have zero tolerance for leaked content for their games no matter how you got the copy, whether its legit or downloaded from a torrent site. Microsoft is just working with R* to uphold their policies on Xbox live and i'm sure Sony would do the same. Geezz read the article.
#1.2.5 (Edited 471d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(2) | Report
Ben Dover  +   470d ago
Haha Christocolus, you just got served hardcore. Pretty clueless aren't we?
PoSTedUP  +   471d ago
that sucks. sounds more like a personal problem.
its ok they are going to buy a ps4 anyway im sure most of the community are sick of this bs.
if i bought a legit copy and wanted to post gameplay... this isnt a free country after? hell i would be in an outrage.
Lukas_Japonicus  +   471d ago
The issue isn't posting the gameplay, the issue is being dumb enough to get caught by going online or revealing your gamertag.
PoSTedUP  +   471d ago
it says playing a leaked verson of the game And spreading content. if they got the copys legit, this is unfair to the gamer and gaming community.

edit: hmm maybe the copies arent legit, then yes, they are very dumb.
#1.3.2 (Edited 471d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(0) | Report
Sarick  +   471d ago
Please read this entire comment before making any rash judgments. I speak from a logical standpoint unrelated to brand bias.

"If i bought a legit copy and wanted to post gameplay... this isnt a free country after? hell i would be in an outrage."

Just because you buy a game doesn't mean it's legitimate. If the company who sold it violates the advertised release date your copy isn't legal until AFTER that date. Also, there are rules and laws even in a free country. Free isn't defined as we can run around doing anything we think is acceptable.

Think of it like this with a property closing date being the same as the games release date. Lets say you had home mortgage loan approved with a closing date of Sept. 27th. Some might assume that because the house is empty it'd be okay to move in on Sept 2nd. NO, It's not legal they don't have legal rights to that home until on or after the closing date! You can actually be arrested for trespassing breaking and entering etc. if reported or caught.

Example:
http://www.hadlocklaw.com/t...

This is just like the games that are leaked. The product was illegally released to the public. Even games that may seem legal because they are bought online or from a local store doesn't matter. They aren't really legitimate until after the approved release date. They call them LEAKS for a reason.

The fact is companies and persons who SOLD the product or allowed game access should also be held responsible for the illegal sale/release. If it's an employee who stole an early copy at a game stone he/she should get ban if caught.

In all honesty companies could ban the consoles *until* the customer calls them up giving them proof of the company who sold/leaked them the illegal product. This way if it's truly authorized the ban can be lifted and the real party at fault is punished accordingly.

This is just my opinion, I'm not defending Microsoft or promoting Sony. Again, I speak from a logical standpoint unrelated to brand bias.
#1.3.3 (Edited 471d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report
Shadonic  +   471d ago
I got SSX early from target and played it online early >.>
Imalwaysright  +   471d ago
I got TLoU and TR 3 or 4 days early and I never felt I was doing something wrong because I bought them legitemally. If someone doesn't steal the game I don't see why he/she shouldn't be able to play it and I sure as hell don't see why that person should be punished.
#1.4.1 (Edited 471d ago ) | Agree(16) | Disagree(1) | Report
jmc8888  +   471d ago
@lmalwaysright

It's because there are morons in this world who think that they should have the right to dictate asinine rules to you and punish you if you don't abide by pointless rules.

Microsoft is certainly one of those entities. Many people and corporations take similar approaches, and it is usually in this context when great wrongs are committed.

Microsoft is banning people like fascist HOA's make people take down DirecTV dishes because some old person complains an 18 inch dish on the top of a neighbor's roof is an eyesore.

Anyone that thinks we live in the land of the free is a person that makes Mr. Magoo and Forrest Gump look like luminaries.
wiz7191  +   471d ago
Stop blaming Microsoft for R* policy , maybe R* didnt send out early copies and if they did it was only to reviewers. If your dumb enough to pirate a game and get caught that's your own fault.
Soldierone  +   471d ago
If they bought it legit, there is no reason they can't go online. The people being punished should be the stores that jumped the gun.....
Whitefire  +   471d ago
The person should know when the game is being released, and bought it knowingly early. Which Microsoft found out and banned them, nothing wrong.
Soldierone  +   471d ago
@Above, no not everyone that buys games are people going on game websites like us. They see it early, they gobble it up. They don't knowingly do anything wrong.....
playboi28  +   471d ago
Whitefire,

Are you saying that everytime I go into a store to buy a game, I have to check release date info and double check before I actually PAY for a game? What if it's someone's parents? Are they required to be informed when they go into Gamestop/Bestbuy/Walmart and ask to purchase a game that is readily available to purchase? I completely agree with Soldierone. The standard has always been to fine the retailer that sold the game early, not punish the consumer.
Ritsujun  +   471d ago
Whitefire can't stop licking Microsofie's AH.
#1.5.4 (Edited 471d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(1) | Report
joe90  +   471d ago
Wouldn't make a difference, soon as he got 1 acheivment it would be dated and stamped when he unlocked it and when logging back online it would show it was unlocked a week early anyway.

lose lose situation.
Lukas_Japonicus  +   471d ago
I have achievements that don't have any dates next to them from when my Xbox live ran out. How would it be dated and stamped if it cant relay the information?
#1.6.1 (Edited 471d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(1) | Report
esemce  +   471d ago
If your 360 is unplugged from the power the time/date resets. So playing offline is fine. You would have to stay offline until release day though.

This whole thing with MS banned people for playing LEGIT RETAIL but early copies of games is a disgrace.

As if any gamer that gets a game early would or should have to wait for the official release date, it's immoral for Microsoft to do this especially as of now there is NO PIRATED VERSION online.

Damn MS I'm getting closer and closer to cancelling my Xb One pre order, do I want to support a company that treats their loyal customer like this ? Not really.
ALARM-clock  +   471d ago
Some countries sell their stock as soon as it arrives, especially in the middle east. Most of the leaks are probably from people who bought the game legitimately. It's a bit harsh to ban someone over posting gameplay, especially considering they lose all their digital purchases, all their contacts, all online functionality including Netflix, etc. You get banned, your console is a brick.
InMyOpinion  +   471d ago
"Some countries sell their stock as soon as it arrives, especially in the middle east."

Then ban them until they learn to follow rules.
Cueil  +   471d ago
lets not pretend that this is new... especially if you go around posting shit about the game and it's not hard to dress a game up
1OddWorld  +   471d ago
Rockstar invests in you the gamer and this is how you treat them. Uploading footage trying to spoil the game for those who are waiting patiently.

Brick their consoles Microsoft I hope that PS3 would do the same.
jmc8888  +   471d ago | Well said
At some point human beings have to realize that going against made up standards with no validity other then someone choosing it to be so, is no reason to be punished.

There is no law that getting a copy of a game early and popping it into a console is against the law. There is no reason why someone who did so should have their console banned. Microsoft showing you who is the overlord.

Now is he stupid given the current setup, sure is!

Does he deserve it? Nope.

People please get your lips off of corporate butts.

People that approve of this are sad, sad individuals. Sadly they too are screwed over one way or another by the same thing in other areas, and probably are hypocrites when it happens to them.

When people with such viewpoints are put into power (corporate, local, national, etc), that's where abuse comes from.
#1.8 (Edited 471d ago ) | Agree(18) | Disagree(6) | Report | Reply
stuna1  +   471d ago
I had to give you a bubble for that, well put! Look at it from this standpoint, when a new model of car rolls off the assembly line, yet it's the next year model, does the person purchasing it have to wait until the following year to drive it!?
insomnium2  +   471d ago
If someone posts gameplay videos of a game that has yet to launch I can see some reason for punishment. Why the hell would he make gameplay videos before launch? Stupid? Or out for fame and money? Either way R* sees it as a threat to sales so you should keep the game to yourself before it launches. Profiting (youtube hits for example) off of it like that is asking for a punishment.

However if MS is banning people for simply playing the game early that is BS.
NarooN  +   470d ago
+Well said bubble.

I can understand if Rockstar are angry for early gameplay videos, because it spoils the game for people who can not yet acquire the game. This could potentially negatively impact software sales as a result. But even if Rockstar doesn't like that, I'm pretty sure it doesn't say anywhere in the MS ToS that you can't post early gameplay videos anywhere, to where if you do, you get your system banned from XB Live.

However, if Microsoft is banning people just for playing the game early, then to hell with them. That's the most baseless and arbitrary "punishment" I have seen in a long time in this industry. There's no excuse for it. I already haven't liked Microsoft for a very long time due to various policies and business practices that I didn't approve of (most of which have nothing to do with the Xbox), but this is them crossing the line yet again.

People just can't sit down and accept this, if this is really the case.
#1.8.3 (Edited 470d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
Sarick  +   470d ago
More or less it falls under the contract laws that the third party distributor agrees to. If a retailer sells a product before it's launch date that copy isn't considered legitimate until after it's official release date.

IMHO: the company/persons who gave access or sold the product should be at fault first. If a console is banned then the owner of said console should retain some rights. These should include the right to defend themselves of wrongdoing.

http://answers.yahoo.com/qu...
Sarick  +   470d ago
@stuna1 and anyone who disagrees.

"look at it from this standpoint, when a new model of car rolls off the assembly line, yet it's the next year model, does the person purchasing it have to wait until the following year to drive it!?"

That all depends on if the manufacture had a **CONTRACT** that limited the resale of the product prior to it's purchase. If a dealership sells it then they've breached contract. No the police won't arrest you for this but you must consider cars and games aren't the same product.

Unlike cars the manufacture knows the release date and can take action against both the buyer and seller if caught.

The online service provider runs a privately owned service. They can and will flex their rights to control who or what devices have access to their service.

This is especially true if the user of said service allows one or more players a competitive advantage because they used products or services not officially authorized to run on them.

Are you telling me that if someone sells you restricted product that's okay legally to use it?

Well, I think I'm going to go buy some illegal drugs. If I pay for them it's my right to use them. Surely the authorities will respect that I bought them with my money. /s

You can't honesty look at it from a selfish perspective. The company who sold it did so in a dubious fashion. They put you at risk of the ban. When these people knowingly played it they did so with/without thinking about the consequences.

If you knowingly bought an illegitimate product before the official release you should be reasonable. As an intellectual person with a respect/understanding of laws you should expect some form of consequences if caught. Any less of an attitude should be socially and morally unacceptable.

Yes it's just a game but there are laws and distribution rules. These should be respected. If you're caught playing these games early either you've been authorized or they aren't legitimate. The manufacture is assuming the most obvious if they haven't been approved on their services.

Lastly, online subscription services are private services not public. They have the legal rights to give/deny what hardware has access to them.
#1.8.5 (Edited 470d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
ALLWRONG  +   471d ago
Bottom line is MS is going after people playing the game illegally. If (censored) had done this first the comments above would be saying how great (censored) is by protecting gamers. This is N4G though, so anything MS does is bad, until next week when (censored) starts doing it.

This site is hypocrite HQ for the hypocrite army.
DragonKnight  +   471d ago
How is playing a game you paid for illegal just because the store gave it to you early? Answer: It isn't. MS bricking your console for no reason IS illegal however. Your lame subtle bash at Sony is lame. If Sony did this, I guarantee you the backlash would be worse on them.

Bottom Line: The game was bought and paid for. A banning is uncalled for, immoral, AND ILLEGAL! It is against the law to remove the ability to use a legally obtained item without just cause and playing it early is not just cause. The day you stop being a Microsoft fanboy, you'll be much better off.
playboi28  +   471d ago
Yes, you are allwrong. The illegal act was the SELLING of the game, not the PURCHASE (unless it was stolen). And to say that Sony wouldn't suffer backlash is ridiculous. Sony removed a feature from their console that almost noone used and they were hacked to hell for it. Their entire network was down over a month. They had to give tons of stuff away just to save face. As for protecting gamers, this is the company that gave away credit monitoring in case of identity theft after the fact. Microsoft still hasn't even admitted to being hacked when I know several people that have had thousands of XBL points charged to their accounts.
DragonKnight  +   471d ago
playboi28: Did you know that MS built in a security back door for the NSA in every version of Windows since Windows 95?

This is an article from 1999 that discusses that it was even in place back then.

http://www.heise.de/tp/arti...

And now there are rumours that it still happens with Windows 8.

So people like to accuse Sony of not allegedly protecting their personal information (which amounts to public knowledge since said information was only things like addresses, but also passwords which is admittedly bad), but MS willingly gave it away. For YEARS!
warczar  +   471d ago
@ALLWRONG

I'm definitely a sony first guy but if sony started banning people for playing games that they purchased legally, my PS3 would become a bookend just like my poorly built POS 360 that hasn't seen the light of day since Judgment came out.

Now of coarse if these are pirated copies then yes these people should be banned but I can't see how someone could pirate a copy before the games is even released.
Death  +   471d ago
If someone bought a retail copy from a retailer that broke the street date, how is that legal? Retailers have a legal agreement with distributors that prohibts them from doing this. The retailer can be held accountable for this and the employee should be fired.

ALLWRONG is not bashing Sony with his comment, he is pointing out the hypocricy of some users that bash Microsoft every chance they get.

As for the entire rant on Windows and the NSA, what does that have to do with GTA and 360 bans that this article covers? I don't think you need to troll every single Xbox article you see with off-topic comments like this. Write a letter to Microsoft or switch to an Apple or Linux OS if you are unhappy.

Breaking the Live Terms of Use and getting your account suspended is not bricking the console. It's having your online access revoked because you broke the agreement you made.

Sony has the same policies in place. https://support.us.playstat...
DragonKnight  +   471d ago
@Death: I've already addressed you once on this issue, and I will not address you in every comment you're choosing to follow me to. You should know that people who follow me around and harass me never do so for long. 2 members who've done so are gone, their accounts closed. If you want to be the 3rd, then go ahead and continue following me around.
Death  +   470d ago
It's a small pond we are swimming in DK. If you honestly think I am following you and harrassing you, by all means do what you need to do. I stand by my post history and welcome any review. Your constant threats and demands are getting kind of old to be honest. I'm not sure you understand the point of a forum such as this. It is designed to promote healthy debate and conversation. Maybe get an advertiser click here and there too.

Back on topic, I have multiple NDA's on file throughout the years and have inside knowledge of how embargo's work. Your statement that Microsoft's enforcement of the embargo or possibly illegal copies as being illegal is incorrect.
playboi28  +   470d ago
@Death,

How can ALLWRONG not be bashing Sony (or (censored)) when the point everyone is making is that it wasn't illegal for them to play it? It was illegal for the retailer to sell it. And who exactly are the hypocrites here? I see so many gamers on both consoles defending their favorite consoles like they own the companies. When did video games become politics? Everything Microsoft does isn't bad, they just do much more bad than Sony, therefore they get called out on it. If Sony does bad, they get called out as well (i.e. being hacked, removing other OS, suing GeoHot, etc). Noone playing GTA V had to sign a NDA, and nowhere in the XBL TOS does it state you can't play a game before it's release date. It has zero tolerance against piracy, not purchases.
cgoodno  +   471d ago
Doesn't matter if they go online or not, Microsoft can see the time stamp for the game data on the HDD and ban based on that.

Regardless, Microsoft should not be banning people who have legit copies of the game. It's not against the law to play a game you own, nor is it against the law to record and upload video of the game. Take it up with the retailers who sold the game, not the players.
#1.10 (Edited 471d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
insomnium2  +   471d ago
Buying and playing the game early is one thing but posting videos about an unlaunched game is just uncool. The guy was greedy for youtube hits? I can see how a punishment is due if you actually make videos and upload them online before launch.
cgoodno  +   471d ago
***Buying and playing the game early is one thing but posting videos about an unlaunched game is just uncool.***

And not illegal or against the Microsoft ToS...

Whether it's cool or not, is subjective.

Your perception of this has no bearing on this. The law supports the user.
sAVAge_bEaST  +   470d ago
Yea, I don't see how Microsoft can ban a console, for playing a purchased game,. So what that someone got it from a mom & pop shop, or maybe sneaked from a retailer they work for. This is not cheating or modding the console in any way, if any thing, it's free publicity for Rock Star. Pretty harsh and unfair, all in all, to get a console ban over it.
BoriboyShoGUN  +   471d ago
People act like a mofo at Gamestop, Walmart, cant open a box early and snatch a couple games. But honestly if your using a game that you know hasnt been released yet youre begging for it. I wouldnt risk it personally.
playboi28  +   471d ago
Who's to say they know it's not released? And honestly, why the f--- not?
aceitman  +   471d ago
with xbox one around the corner I don't think its a good Idea for ms to ban people who have legit copys,( give some consideration they bought the game on ur console) they should find what store sold it and punish them . (if they were pirated ok fine , but there not. )
#1.12 (Edited 471d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
UnholyLight  +   471d ago
They specifically tell people not to play before the release date. Legit or not, R* wanted to prevent leaks of the game (as does Microsoft when it comes to any game at all).

Doesn't bother me in the slightest, it's the way it should be honestly. You can't trust people, even if you tell them not to (and it is a strict rule of Xbox Live).

Goes for anything really, look at the Developer Bungie...They told people not to do certain things like constantly betraying people or posting hacked content on their fileshare and they warn of banning those people from playing online but nope.. people just don't listen.
r1sh12  +   471d ago
The only thing is - Microsoft are not banning anyone.
A friend who works in Game (UK) has a copy and has unlocked achievements for the past 3 days.
He keeps sending me whatsapps of gameplay.

Some people might get banned but most wont, and there is no T&C regarding playing games before release.
If any of the banned people are smart they could take it to court.

Ill see if my friend gets banned, but he does this with most games.
DARK WITNESS  +   471d ago
From my understanding the real problem is not getting and playing a copy early, the problem is taking videos of in game content and spreading it.

this has happened plenty of times before and MS has to my knowledge always said that if you got a copy of a game early from a legit source, they wont ban you over it. if you got a pirate copy or something like that then it's a different matter.

I think they are doing this based off R* policy which again clearly says they take issue with videoing and posting vidoes online, not so much just playing the game early.
Oh_Yeah  +   471d ago
So? Next gen is a couple months away.
NYC_Gamer  +   471d ago
MS shouldn't ban gamers who bought legit copies but that already happens on xbl
stickskills  +   471d ago
It seems they're banning people for posting the footage online, instead of just banning for buying a legitimate copy.
BattleTorn  +   471d ago
Exactly. There are hundreds if not thousands of people already playing a copy of GTA V.

And Microsoft has no ability to tell who has permission to be play. (cause many likely do have permission)

It's the people posting footage online that are getting banned.

I've played games before release - such as BF3. I was playing online with people. As long as your not abusing the early acces, like upload footage, the companies assume you have legit review copies.
#2.1.1 (Edited 471d ago ) | Agree(8) | Disagree(2) | Report
DragonKnight  +   471d ago
They don't have the right to ban people for posting footage online. First of all GTAV isn't an MS exclusive first party game, so they don't own it nor do they own any rights to it. Secondly, as cgoodno said above, there's no law against recording and uploading gameplay footage and if there is a violation of a ToU, then it's up to Take Two to enforce, not Microsoft.

In summation, nothing that Microsoft has done is legal, or ethical, or in any way shape or form correct.
Dee_Cazo  +   471d ago
The idiots on here don't care why they are banning people even if it is a legitimate reason. They just needed another reason to masturbate to Microsoft bashing.

Also your bullshit headlines to garner more clicks and cause this is making this site even worse.

N4G might as well be Digg.
Dee_Cazo  +   471d ago
@Battletorn @DragonKnight

1. People who legitimately own a copy are under embargo. If they fail to abide by it they deserve what they get, especially if it is press.

2. People who are posting footage online are not being attacked by Microsoft as much as Microsoft is helping Rockstar and TakeTwo to protect their games. Which is something developers really appreciate.
DragonKnight  +   471d ago
"1. People who legitimately own a copy are under embargo. If they fail to abide by it they deserve what they get, especially if it is press."

Unless they sign an NDA, no they are not under embargo. You aren't automatically under an embargo just because the publisher wants the game released on a specific day. They have no legal authority to do that as that's something that has to have consent and there is no Agree/Disagree option when you turn on the game.

"2. People who are posting footage online are not being attacked by Microsoft as much as Microsoft is helping Rockstar and TakeTwo to protect their games. Which is something developers really appreciate."

Not Microsoft's place. What Microsoft are doing is illegal and it's not even for their own product.
Death  +   471d ago
People that have an early copy legitamately are absolutley under an NDA. You need only have one NDA signed and on file that would cover this. If you have an early copy and no NDA, then you should not have an early copy. This is where the problem is.

It is absolutely the responsibility of Microsoft and Sony to help third parties enforce the street date of games. The street date is determined by the publisher. The publisher grants rights to media and advertisers for pre-release information so they can get reviews ready for launch.

What Microsoft is doing is part of their legal agreement with the publishers. Users that are accessing the game are breaking the Terms of Use with Microsoft in this case and with Take Two.
DragonKnight  +   471d ago
"People that have an early copy legitamately are absolutley under an NDA. You need only have one NDA signed and on file that would cover this. If you have an early copy and no NDA, then you should not have an early copy. This is where the problem is."

You have to be joking. First of all, an average consumer will not have ever signed an NDA nor will ever have to under normal circumstances, so that doesn't apply. Second of all, no you are not under an NDA because you signed one in the Past. Every NDA has to be tailored to the situation or product. The only way that works is if an NDA is created with the stipulation of, as an example, "We agree to send you early copies of all our games so long as you agree not to talk about them publicly until we say you can." That's a blanket NDA that likely exists, but again it has to be specific.

"It is absolutely the responsibility of Microsoft and Sony to help third parties enforce the street date of games. The street date is determined by the publisher. The publisher grants rights to media and advertisers for pre-release information so they can get reviews ready for launch."

Unless and agreement was made between said third party publishers and MS or Sony, then no it is not their responsibility to enforce street dates. And besides, this is a case of bricking a console, not locking out access to one game. MS banned people from being able to use the entirety of their console for a game they have no ownership of and no rights or obligations to. It's up to Take Two to take responsibility for this, not Microsoft. Case in point, FromSoftware punished gamers who played Dark Souls early by placing level 711 Black Phantoms at maximum stats and unlimited spell use in every stage. That's an example of how publishers can punish broken street dates. What Microsoft did was illegal.

"What Microsoft is doing is part of their legal agreement with the publishers. Users that are accessing the game are breaking the Terms of Use with Microsoft in this case and with Take Two."

A legal agreement that you assume exists with no proof (which you can't obtain admittedly) of becomes void when a company is doing something illegal. A consumer has the right to use a legitimately purchased product when they purchase it. In this case, there are 2 wrongs being made. Not only is it not the fault of the gamer who obtained a legitimate copy before the street date for playing his game, he is protected by law in the use of that game and the use of his Xbox 360. Said user never signed an NDA, said user never agreed to not play the game early, there is no clause in the Xbox 360 Terms of Use that you cannot play a legitimately purchased game early because that would be illegal.

Microsoft prevented the legitimate use of GTAV and the Xbox 360 console when they have no legal right to do so. The consumer paid money for the product, in full, and under law the consumer has the right to use that product to its fullest extent unless that user agreed not to under certain conditions.

The user has the right to file a lawsuit against Microsoft for this, frivolous as it may be.
#2.1.7 (Edited 471d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(2) | Report
Death  +   470d ago
Once again, there are no "legit" copies on the street. Early versions get sent out with a letter from legal explaining the embargo's, street dates etc. You must have an NDA on file to receive the game. If someone is breaking the street date with an NDA, it is a civil matter between them and the holder of the NDA.

If a retailer is selling early, that retailer is held accountable since they also carry an agreement with the distributors to not release early. The retailer runs the risk of losing distributors and can possibly be fined for breaking the street date.

If you are a regular customer that obtained the game from a retailer early and had your console banned or suspended, you then have the right to take the retailer to court for selling you the game before the authorized street date. This is not the fault of Microsoft since they didn't authorize it.

This all takes into account customers purchasing the game at a retailer. The other side of the issue which is much more common is piracy. The bulk of "early" released games being played are illegal copies. Microsoft has been permanently banning modded consoles for years. The biggest way to find these consoles is when they play a game that isn't released.

As for Microsoft not having the "right" to ban consoles on a third parties behalf, obviously you are incorrect since it is happening. The platform holder hold all rights for what is released and when on their platform. Third parties actually pay to have their software released on the platform.
DragonKnight  +   470d ago
"Once again, there are no "legit" copies on the street."

Yes there are. This whole situation is discussing a purchased version of the game. That's a legit copy. When money exchanges hands, that's a legitimate sale. The consumer is not bound by the regulations of the retailer and any agreement said retailer has with the publisher.

"If you are a regular customer that obtained the game from a retailer early and had your console banned or suspended, you then have the right to take the retailer to court for selling you the game before the authorized street date. This is not the fault of Microsoft since they didn't authorize it."

Wrong. The retailer is simply a middle man that holds no responsibility of if the product functions or not. The consumer has no obligation to honour an agreement between the retailer and the third party publisher. Microsoft is to be held accountable because they have denied access to a legally obtained product on the grounds of a violation that wasn't committed by the user, but by the retailer instead. The punishment is to be handed out to the retailer. The consumer legally has the right to sue Microsoft for forbidding the legitimate use of a bought product, especially since Microsoft have no ownership rights to that product.

"As for Microsoft not having the "right" to ban consoles on a third parties behalf, obviously you are incorrect since it is happening."

Specious reasoning. Just because a thing happens doesn't mean that the right to make it happen exists. Microsoft do not have the right to do this. The game was legally bought. The user isn't bound by a third party NDA that they have no knowledge of or agreed to in writing. Denying access on that basis is illegal. This isn't a free review copy we're talking about, this is a purchased game. Microsoft's punishment is unwarranted and illegal.

"The platform holder hold all rights for what is released and when on their platform."

The only rights they have is the allowance of the title to appear on the platform. They hold no rights to the IP itself, they hold no right to bar access to the product if it was legitimately purchased because they do not own the product. The publisher decides the release date, not Microsoft unless it is a first party game.

"Third parties actually pay to have their software released on the platform."

Irrelevant to this situation.

Summary: A legally purchased copy of GTAV was sold before the release date. The game was played online, footage was recorded and uploaded to Youtube. The proper and legal course of action would be for Take Two to take action against the retailer, and then make a copyright claim on the Youtube videos. Microsoft, holding no ownership rights to GTAV and having no Terms of Use violation specific to the Xbox console to cite, had no legal right to ban the user from utilizing any aspect of his Xbox console.

The user has a right to sue Microsoft for unlawfully banning him because the user can't be held accountable for an embargo he did not agree to, nor can he be held accountable for a violation that doesn't exist in the Terms of Use for the Xbox 360. If there is a violation of Take Two's Terms of Use, which again there isn't for the user, that's up to Take Two to enforce by firstly making the agreement to the ToS and subsequent violation of said known to all involved parties, and then taking the appropriate action based on that violation. Microsoft illegally banned a user.
Death  +   470d ago
It is only illegal if it is against the law.

Microsoft makes it clear in their Terms of Use that they can suspend or ban your account. So does Sony and I would think Nintendo. Playing unauthorized content is against the Terms of Use. If a retailer breaks the release date, they are accountable for it. In this case if it were a genuine mistake, the customer needs to contact the retailer and make a complaint. The retailer should replace the console and take action against the employee that sold the software.

Microsoft is not the party that is wrong in this matter. It would be the retailer and the customer. Ultimately the retailer is left holding the bag. As far as your definition of a legit copy, if this were the case the account would not be banned. It's ok that you feel otherwise, but that does not make it factual.
DragonKnight  +   470d ago
"It is only illegal if it is against the law."

Which it is. Part of consumer law is the that the consumer has the right to use a legally obtained and paid for product. GTAV was legally obtained, Microsoft banned the user, the user can now not only not play a game he paid for, but also can't do other stuff on his Xbox 360 which has nothing to do with the game. I.L.L.E.G.A.L.

"Microsoft makes it clear in their Terms of Use that they can suspend or ban your account."

Yes, but they can only do so under the agreed upon terms, and those terms are specific to the console or Microsoft owned products. They cannot ban a user for a violation that they didn't specify in the ToS and a violation that says something along the lines of "we reserve the right to ban you for violating agreements we make with 3rd party publishers" is not allowed as it is vague and the user never agreed to that agreement. It's akin to contract law. In contract law, if a stipulation is written that is vague, the law supports the signer, not the drafter.

"Playing unauthorized content is against the Terms of Use."

It wasn't unauthorized content. It was a legitimately bought game. The part that is unauthorized is the SELLING of the game early, not the PLAYING of the game. Go ahead and look in the ToS for a clause that even implies playing a game early is a violation. You won't find it. Plus, contracts have to be explicit, not implicit.

"If a retailer breaks the release date, they are accountable for it. In this case if it were a genuine mistake, the customer needs to contact the retailer and make a complaint. The retailer should replace the console and take action against the employee that sold the software."

You were doing so well and then veered right off into a wall of wrong. The retailer is only responsible for the action of selling the product, not the function of it. The retailer holds no obligation to replace the console, especially if the console wasn't purchased at the same store the game was. The retailer didn't block use of the product, Microsoft did. The retailer had no obligation to inform the user of an agreement it had with Take Two, nor did the user have an obligation to honour an agreement it was never part of. The violation is the retailer's alone and so should be the punishment. Microsoft is at fault for the unwarranted and unlawful banning.

"Microsoft is not the party that is wrong in this matter. It would be the retailer and the customer."

Firstly, yes they are. Secondly, in what world is the consumer wrong for buying and then using a product? Certainly not the real or legal world.

"As far as your definition of a legit copy, if this were the case the account would not be banned. It's ok that you feel otherwise, but that does not make it factual."

Too bad that it is the case, and has been the case before. Microsoft do not care if the game was legally bought. They only care that it was played early. In fact even the article itself mentions that the violation is in Rockstar's Terms of Use, not Microsoft's, and is about uploading footage pre-release. Someone in this comment section posted proof that it was a bought copy and the article mentions the ban happened due to the gamertag being visible in the video. Now that user has to buy a new Xbox 360 to game online because of a violation of Rockstar's ToS that has nothing to do with MS' ToS, and Rockstar themselves stated that the only action that would be taken is a removal of the videos. So again, you can try to deny all the evidence because Microsoft and Xbox are your god, but facts are against you and Microsoft did something illegal.
negative  +   471d ago
Well yes if they are legit copies I guess it's not their fault for someone selling it to them.

Then again, if you know it's a problem don't go online with the game until release day.
nick309  +   471d ago
Game isnt on torrents. Look it up
Dee_Cazo  +   470d ago
It's not that they went online. It's that they are streaming and posting stuff from the game. If you own a copy right now like I do, and don't be stupid, you won't get a ban.

It's the people that are leaking footage and stuff for no reason except for a few minutes of people paying attention to them on the internet that are losing accounts, which is great.
GeneralRaam93   471d ago | Spam
Mystogan  +   471d ago
That's the thing. These are not legit copies. And they're stupid for going online with it.
isa_scout  +   471d ago
These are legit copies. If you watch the video you'll see him taking it out of the box,complete with the atomic blimp download voucher. He got banned for simply playing the game while logged in to Xbox Live. This has happened to me before to. Believe it or not, my local Rite Aid use to sell video games, and the old woman there didn't know a thing about video games so she would sell them early. Now is that my fault? No, I paid for the game legally and therefore should be able to play it whenever I want. For god sake people it's not even like he can play online given that GTAO doesn't launch until Oct. 1st. Eventually Rite Aid got caught, and no longer sell video games, and that's what should happen here. Punish the retailer, if there is one very wise rule of thumb in the businuess industry it's that you never punish your loyal consumers. If MS can't differentiate between legit and pirated games then maybe they should just leave everyone alone.
ABeastNamedTariq  +   471d ago
They should, IF they pirated the game.
BattleTorn  +   471d ago
And/or they upload footage before embargo.

Microsoft has no way of telling which review copies are being played by which gamertag.

It's only pirated copies, and uploaders who get banned.
clevernickname  +   471d ago
Microsoft is on very shaky legal ground for banning those posting game footage of a legitimately purchased copies of the game. Fair use is enshrined in American law for a reason.
insomnium2  +   471d ago
@clever

I don't know about the law but it sure feels more justified to ban people if the upload videos and such. they are acting out of green or something. They want fame of youtube hits for said video.
GeneralRaam93   471d ago | Spam
kenmid  +   471d ago
Good, I refuse to watch any leaks videos or screens until Tuesday when I put it in my 360 for myself.
Kenshin_BATT0USAI  +   471d ago
Because GTA has an absurdly good story right? There's nothing really spoilable with this game, you play it and have fun. I don't think I know a single person who got the game because of "convincing voice actors and amazing storytelling"
TXIDarkAvenger  +   471d ago
Yeah, but spoilers can go beyond the story like all vehicles, weapons, GTA Online features, etc...
Kenshin_BATT0USAI  +   471d ago
Fair enough. If you generalize it, I can see your point. But I dunno, for me, I don't buy a game unless I know the mechanics of game, seems like a risky purchase. Least to me.
isa_scout  +   471d ago
Shit dude, I've actually enjoyed the stories in the GTA series...lol You're right, people do mainly just play it for its sandbox world, but the stories have been fairly good as well. Besides for movies where else are we supposed to get our gangster/mob stories? I can honestly say I'm looking forward to the story just as much as to messing around in Los Santos...Ok, I'm lying, but seriously the stories are pretty good.
Shadonic  +   471d ago
Thers some spoilers kinda like just small insight stuff nothing major but i understand you.
Kenshin_BATT0USAI  +   471d ago
I don't see how that's a bannable offence. They didn't break the street date, the retailer that sold it did. They didn't sign any NDA either, as far I'm concerned, if they post footage of their gameplay experiences, that's fair game.
KonsoruMasuta  +   471d ago
It's not that they got the game early. It's that they are leaking information online.
Kenshin_BATT0USAI  +   471d ago
I wouldn't consider it a leak though if it was gained via a legit source. I.e. the game itself.

This could go both ways, but at the very least, I don't think they should be banned over it. Least not past release date.
darkpower  +   471d ago
It's Microsoft! It's not like they made the best decisions lately (how many things have they back pedaled on with the XB1?).
Syntax-Error  +   471d ago
WTF does that have to do with this? Are you still complaining about reversing their policy on DRM? How old are you?! You are immature as hell
#6.2.1 (Edited 471d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(3) | Report
darkpower  +   471d ago
Oh good lord! They made bad decisions they had to back pedal from. This is another bad decision they'll probably regret and/or back pedal from.

Do I seriously have to explain everything?
isa_scout  +   471d ago
I agree 100%. Perma banning a console seems extremely harsh unless they know and have evidence to support the idea that these were pirated copies. I'm surprised MS has never been taken to court over things like this. Sure know if they'd pull this crap with me I'd be tryin to find a way to get the price of what my console cost.
SpideySpeakz  +   471d ago
That's a very legitimate statement and you make a very good point. However, in order to play this 'unreleased' version, you would have to HACK the game.
Hacking is an instant ban, no matter if you bought it or not.
porkChop  +   471d ago
You don't have to hack anything at all. He bought the game legit. You just put the disc in the drive and play. No hacks are needed at all. He did nothing wrong. Permanently banning his console is ridiculous.
hankmoody  +   471d ago
RESPECT THE STREET DATE! I mean, if you get an early copy, good for you but be smart and stay offline, geniuses.
extermin8or  +   471d ago
I don't see why you should have to... The street date applies to RETAILERS only (well anyone selling copies of the game really...) but the buyer isn't in the wroong if it's a legit copy the retailer is at fault. They purchased it fair and square so they should be able to play it if they want. Same way the embargo date allows for a company to stop media outlets revealing stuff, and allows footage to be pulled from the web. But doesn't really apply to everyone else I mean you could in theory sue them but as they signed no agreement upon recieving the game.... you'll find it hard to get them actually given a proper penalty.
hankmoody  +   471d ago
Anyone who has been gaming long enough knows the risks when they play a game before it's release date. Sometimes it's not such a big deal but with huge titles like this, you're playing with fire.
extermin8or  +   471d ago
Yes but you shouldn't be... and I'm sure if you DID buy a legit copy and can prove it and they've banned you you can get yourself unbanned. Just threaten some kind of legal action is all it should take. Especially if you have quite alot of xbl content on that account...
isa_scout  +   471d ago
You shouldn't have to stay offline though... If you've done nothing wrong or illegal why hide??? That just makes you look like you've done something wrong. Why treat a paying customer( he had Xbox Live and bought the game legally) like a criminal?
DirtyPimp  +   471d ago
thats cold blooded
SliceOfTruth888  +   471d ago
O my lord people. You will not be banned if its a legit copy of the game. Only if you are playing a pirated copy....for gods sake every time a game comes out its the same story
isa_scout  +   471d ago
Show me the link for the torrent then... Go to Kickasstorrents or Demonoid or wherever you go and find the torrent...You can't because it's not there. He bought it legally which if you would watch the video shows him opening the case and moving the atomic blimp voucher out of the way.
porkChop  +   471d ago
You clearly don't know what you're talking about. His copy was a legit one that he purchased from a retailer. He even showed the case, DLC voucher, etc, in one of his videos. He's not a pirate, and he didn't break any rules. Street dates apply to the retailer, not the consumer. NDAs (which need to be signed) apply to media outlets, not the consumer. He didn't do anything wrong or break any rules whatsoever.
coolasj  +   471d ago
Why would you buy the game for Xbox and play it? You KNOW you're going to get banned.
XboxFun  +   471d ago
Good to see that MS is taking the initiative and looking out for the developer interests.

Just wait everyone this game is coming soon enough.
Imalwaysright  +   471d ago
Yes. it is quite clear that MS doesn't give a damn about consumers interests.
#11.1 (Edited 471d ago ) | Agree(12) | Disagree(5) | Report | Reply
husomc   471d ago | Immature | show
thehitman  +   471d ago
Edit: Fully read article how dumb can you be to post a vid of you playing the game w/ your gamertag showing a week before.. I would say he normally didnt deserve to be banned but if your going to be obnoxiously blatant with what your doing knowing its wrong then you deserve to get what you get.
#12 (Edited 471d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(5) | Report | Reply
extermin8or  +   471d ago
They still have no right to ban him. By playing it he's done nothing wrong if it's legit copy. Uploading it maybe, but nothing that Ms have any right to ban him for... The video could be pulled... Yes and past that it's up to Rockstar they'd want to take that further.
Nekroo91  +   471d ago
the leaked gameplay released are from legit copies, you know its easy to get a copy of gta v from retailers, if you know someone working there and hes the owner theres no problem.

And since the moment i get my hands on a copy that ive bought with my money i have the right to upload my gameplays

so...Fuck you MS
extermin8or  +   471d ago
And Rockstar/2K have the right to pull the videos. Get youtube to ban you etc, But MS have no right to block you.... so they are most certainly in the wrong.
thehitman  +   471d ago
If MS blocked him then they do have the right as in they did and will get away with it, because its in their legal bounds to do it. Whether people agree if it was the right or nice thing to do is another thing.
#13.1.1 (Edited 471d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(3) | Report
clevernickname  +   471d ago
No, Rockstar does not have the right to pull videos. Fair use of copy written material for discussion, review, and criticism is enshrined in American law.
windblowsagain  +   471d ago
MS got to get their numbers up some how.
kenmid  +   471d ago
elaborate
Hicken  +   471d ago
1. Ban consoles before a big release.
2. People buy new consoles to play big release.
3. ????
4. Profit!
ElementX  +   471d ago
People know the street date. If somebody offered me a copy early I wouldn't buy it. There's a reason games have street dates and the purchaser is just as much to blame as the person selling it early.
extermin8or  +   471d ago
Legally they aren't and what's the purpose of the street date exactly here.... It's a few days early? The games printed onto discs and ready to go live on stores... So what exactly do you harm if you'e paid for it R* got money... so whats the issue...
ElementX  +   471d ago
There's really no harm done however rules is rules
Imalwaysright  +   471d ago
Rules? If the game is on the shelves and you buy it legitemally, exactly what rule are you breaking?
ElementX  +   471d ago
I think most of the broken street dates are people getting the game early from friends working in stores. If they are in collaboration with employees then they are at fault. If it was on the shelf where are the pictures? You'd have to be blind to miss the street date labels on the box and in certain cases, the games themselves.
#15.1.3 (Edited 471d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(4) | Report
thehitman  +   471d ago
@ alwaysright
Most likely the game wasnt on a shelve. I have bought games days before release dates from mom and pop stores BUT I never get a reciept of purchase because it is illegal and they could get in trouble so they dont give evidence of purchase.

Really the store who sold it is more out of bounds then the person playing it but like I said in another post the guy was dumb enough to brag about it all over the internet and show who he was. I mean you can brag to your friends call them over but cmon how dumb can you be to brag over the internet. Its like if someone robs a bank and they dropped a stack of cash while getting away and you pick it up happy and then take photos of it and videos, putting it on the net, of how much money you found knowing it was stolen in the first place.
jmc8888  +   471d ago
Yes there are many types of rules.

There's natural law, what the U.S. started with, and what we're supposed to be.

Then there's corporate law, which is what we've imported from the U.K. which continues to screw people over for asinine reasons.

There is no legitimate reason to ban them. Not made up rules that serve no purpose and only punish their paying customers.

Microsoft acting like a fascist dictator. Where have we seen this before?
rajman  +   471d ago
Im guessing this is Microsoft's dumb terms of conditions. I've played numerous PS3 games while being online online way before release date....such as Black Ops 2, God of War 3, Uncharted 3, Starhawk etc up to 2 weeks before release and I've never been banned or got any warning.
IHassounah  +   471d ago
This is actually respect for a developer like Rockstar , leaking footage in the net is just a big problem I believe so I do support Microsoft with this idea
King-Prodigy-X  +   471d ago
M$ trying to suck up to R* because R* decided to advertise GTA V on PS3.
CrimsonStar  +   471d ago
Why would they suck up ? Most of the sales are coming from xbox lol Microsoft doesn't need to advertise it :) .
kingdip90  +   471d ago
If these are legit copies this seems a little harsh, send a warning first and if the guy keeps the stuff he posted online up or adds more then ban him but let him play a game he bought regardless of if he got it early or not .

Now these people can't even use the console they bought on xbox live anymore, like I said it seems excessive.
#18 (Edited 471d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
thebudgetgamer  +   471d ago
It's that time of the year already, Microsoft's pre xmas bannings.
Arturo84  +   471d ago
isn't the ban for showing it off on youtube and other video sharing sites not for playing it? since in the past all manner of games have been release early by certain retailers and people only got banned for doing that or trying to play online mp
Nafon  +   471d ago
What's the point of a release date if people get it early? sure the people bought the game, and so did everyone who will get it on release day. Im all for the bans. If you are stupid enough to play it online, its your own fault. Just play it offline until the day it comes out
OhhWerd  +   471d ago
Serves them right, rockstar wants it released on the 17th, not before. It is not to be sold prior to that date, those people received it illegitimately and I'm glad MS is taking a stand at rockstars request and banning these tards.
diehllane  +   471d ago
It happens.

Hell, I even SOLD games early by mistake once.

I worked at Toys R Us a few years back.
Boxes were opened and things were tossed in a cart. I was told to toss them into security cases and put them out.
Turns out that one of the games was an Alvin and the Chipmunk's DS game that wasn't due out til the following week.

Oh well.
It was on the shelf. We had to honor it.
We found out when we scanned it to ring it up for a kid and it said it wasn't for sale yet.
Manager came over and passed it through, then we removed the rest of the games from the shelf
Angerfist  +   471d ago
I guess if he has a legit copy then he should demand a reactivation, but if its a legit ban - SHAME on him. Crazy if its somehow a pirated version, I can't believe that
FITgamer  +   471d ago
A friend of mine from Kuwait has been playing it on the PS3 for the last two days. I wonder if SONY will do the same thing.
MKDA_Scorpion   471d ago | Bad language | show
worldwidegaming  +   471d ago
Slayed for playing early! Rather than punish the stores that sold early they will slay loyal fans who managed to get a copy!
Gamers who STILL pirate on console are in no way stupid enough to get online.
nzbleach  +   471d ago
A guide to gaming dummies, Play Offline.
SpartanQ8  +   471d ago
Other reason to get a ps4 instead of xbone

(f**k the consumer aim for his money company policy)

Everyday Microsoft everyday your making it easier for me

From ex xbox user
SpideySpeakz  +   471d ago
I don't normally agree with MS on much of anything, but this I do agree with. These hackers should be dealt with. It's good MS stepped in on these clowns. That will make an example to those who even think about doing it.
annus  +   471d ago
These 'hackers' have legally bought the game from a store, there is footage of some showing the case and map that come with the game. The game isn't even available to pirate as of yet.
Linwelin  +   470d ago
You can get a pirated version of the game, (only 360 so far)
porkChop  +   471d ago
First of all, the word you're looking for is pirate, not hacker. Second, he's not a pirate. He bought the game legally, provided evidence of the copy being legit, and has every right to play it and post footage online. Street dates and NDAs do not apply to consumers in any way.
« 1 2 3 »

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login
Remember
New stories
40°

Fallout 4: Why It Should Stick To Single Player Campaign Mode Only

27m ago - Martin Tooney writes:"There’s a book in my collection that I like to read from time to time, it’s... | PC
30°

PlayDevil: WWE 2K15 Review

2h ago - PlayDevil has reviewed WWE 2K15 Here is a snippet: "Animations and combos into moves seem j... | Xbox One
40°

Top 5 Most-Useful Masks in Majora’s Mask

2h ago - ZD: "Hey there, guys! Long time no see, eh? I haven’t made an editorial in quite a while, and I’... | Retro
40°

Lego Batman 3 is already only £20 on PS4/XO

3h ago - Dealspwn writes: You've gotta love a good old fashioned price war. Retailers have been hacking aw... | PS4
Ad

Study Game Design at DeVry

Now - DeVry University, is an accredited* university offering you the flexibility of over 90 locations, online courses and a wide variety of bachelor's a... | Promoted post
40°

Uncharted 3 and Faster Blu-ray double pack only £3

4h ago - Dealspwn writes: Uncharted 3 for a measly £3 is already an incredible deal for one of the PS3's f... | PS3