DragonKnight (User)

  • Contributor
  • 7 bubbles
  • 9 in CRank
  • Score: 142460
"I don't care about bubbles. Seriously, I don't."

Extended NDA: How Gamers Are Punished For No Reason

DragonKnight | 260d ago
User blog

Now that Microsoft and Sony are so close to releasing their next console iterations into the wild, we've all seen the stories of a few lucky gamers receiving their Xbox One consoles weeks in advance of the launch date.

Since the beginning of the existence of the gaming industry, we as gamers have always loved to show off the consoles and games we have, especially when they are brand new. It should come to no surprise then that a gamer would post everything they could about a new console (that's not even for sale yet) all over the internet. This is partly to show off, and partly to inform; it also has the added benefit of being free advertisement. Unfortunately, Microsoft doesn't see it that way and decided to hand the gamer a nice, albeit temporary, console ban for online play. Why take such harsh and drastic measures you might ask? Because the gamer posted information about the console that Microsoft did not want divulged to the public.

Many will make the case that upon agreeing to the Terms of Service, you agree to the condition of NOT posting content online without Microsoft's expressed permission, however there are inherent flaws in that logic. For starters, EULA's and ToS' are rarely enforceable in law due to the fact that they are either far too general in their terminology without any specifics mentioned (which is the case with the Xbox One's ToS), or any aspect of the ToS is deliberately anti-consumer rights and therefore illegal.

Microsoft's ToS for the Xbox One does state that Accepting the Terms means you accept that Microsoft can withhold service or access to the console if you post content online without their permission. The problem is is that it doesn't define what content specifically, or any kind of timeline (which is important to consider for AFTER the console launches), and thus could literally mean any kind of content. Fair Use laws however grant an individual the right to post copyrighted material for the purposes of review, critique, or parody. It could be argued that any users posting early footage/pics of Xbox One content are doing so for public review and critique.

Microsoft seems to think that gamers are bound by the kinds of non-disclosure agreements that developers, publishers, and the gaming media are bound by and they couldn't be more incorrect. No gamer who received their console early ever signed an NDA, nor were terms for such a thing made clear and visible for the gamer to agree to. A ToS is not and NDA, and consumer rights grant any consumer the right to full access and use of a product he/she paid for in full. We're not talking about misuse of licensed software, we're talking about banning a gamer from using half the console he paid for in full because he posted some pictures.

Just because Microsoft weren't ready for certain details to be revealed to the world (and one must wonder what exactly they need to reveal in 2 weeks), doesn't mean that that's the gamer's problem. None of us ever sign an NDA as consumers, and NDA's are contracts that have very specific terminology and rules which must be understood fully before being signed under law.

This is a trend that needs to stop. Microsoft and any other company that prevents the use of a product, and yes it is a product not a service, that was paid for in full are completely in the wrong and could be said to be doing something that is technically illegal.

Punishing gamers for free advertising is a problem that exists in many areas of the gaming industry. Microsoft's issue is with Target, not the gamer who benefited from Target's incompetence. Although the issue with the gamer that posted pics online has been resolved, the mere fact that Microsoft are so swift and arbitrary with banning people is disturbing. It's a tactic they've used several times in the Past and looks to be one that will continue in the Future.

Every day, gamers are being punished more and more just for being gamers and acting the way we all used to back in the old school days. Gamers are being restricted and punished so that corporations can honour their agreements with other corporations. None of us agreed to the terms of a partnership that Microsoft has with any third party source, therefore we are not bound by the terms of those agreements.

It seems like every day, more and more excuses to punish or restrict gamers are invented. It's almost as though being a gamer, in the eyes of corporations, is the wrong demographic to be in and needs to be quashed immediately in favour of drones of the mainstream, pro-corporate, mass consumption variety. We, as gamers, are shown that what we want is wrong, what corporate wants is right, and that really needs to stop.

Author's Note: Due to the power trip, and/or grudge, of a particular individual, I am on day 3 of a 5 day comment restriction for rightfully calling someone who was personally attacking me in my previous blog a "random douchebag." As I serve this punishment of unnecessary severity, I'll not be able to comment in my own blog or make any replies. To the many that are jumping for joy over this, enjoy the reprieve for its duration. To the rest of you, I will reply when I can, or if you'd like I can PM my replies to you directly.

Welcome2Die  +   260d ago
lol 5 days for saying "random douchebag" wow, yeah you must have pissed off an admin, Ive seen people say worse things and get off with a personal attack and no bans.

On topic: I really dont think MS should have banned someone for getting the system early, its not like they have anything game changing to reveal. If they did it would have been leaked already.
coolbeans  +   260d ago
It's definitely not decorum to focus solely on something unrelated to the main basis of the blog, but I suppose I'm now obligated to address it--given that whining about restrictions in blogs seems to be a "thing" now.

-Funny thing about receiving comment restrictions on here: they tend to increase in severity as you get flagged for directly insulting members more and more.

-"Ive seen people say worse things and get off with a personal attack and no bans."

I really, really doubt that, from my experience. If someone starting aiming much more vulgar insults at another poster here, there's no reason for them not to get some form of restriction. Edit: We'll humbly admit some pretty terrible comments have certainly gone by without our notice and that's something we constantly try to improve upon.
#1.1 (Edited 259d ago ) | Agree(7) | Disagree(5) | Report | Reply
cyguration  +   258d ago
DragonKnight's comment restriction really does baffle me, though. It was indirectly aimed at the guy and was mostly harmless but, yeah, I agree with Welcome2Die.
Welcome2Die  +   258d ago
Looking back at his comments I noticed he had some sort of argument with coogndo or something.
Now it all makes sense.
DragonKnight  +   258d ago
@coolbeans: Fortunately for you, being a mod you can go off topic and not be debubbled for it. I don't know what blogs you've been reading, but I've only ever seen someone mention any kind of moderation against them in a blog one other time. I'm not whining, I just stated the fact of why I couldn't comment in my own blog.

Funny thing about restrictions on here: They don't have any standard protocol and are just winged. My previous restriction wasn't for a personal attack, it was because I said XDF and Xbot. HUGE capital offenses and BIG no nos equal in severity to curses, threats, and malicious attacks. And this time I went too far. I said "random douchebag" and that was just the worst thing ever seen. Of course it didn't have anything to do with the fact I'm constantly pointing out poor moderation on the site at all though.

Doubt whatever you want, but in the 5 days since, I've had time to read a lot of comments and you'd be surprised what's gone unmoderated, and how much of it was worse than what I said, some of it was even multiple instances of the SDF, XDF, and Xbot variety. But of course because I happened to say those things, that's more of an offense to deal with.

Ah well, 5 days are now over and nothing has changed.
coolbeans  +   258d ago
"Fortunately" wouldn't exactly the correct term: there's a portion of a blog completely separated from the topic at hand with purposes to both to inform people of your temporary restriction and misinform as to why that punishment was so extended, which now resulted in the typical "mods are biased" opening seen above. You presented the fact you couldn't comment upon submitting but also with what seems to be disinformation (allow me to remind you that is listed in the guidelines). Having another user compare characteristics to the person in which you're criticizing is not a personal attack. And suggesting the severity is due to a power trip and/or grudge against you is untrue given the fact your extension is due to a very recent restriction (that one due to a small batch of comments pegged as Immature or Personal Attack).

Sure, your slight isn't the worst thing on here, but in the end still deserved moderation:

-You get a criticism regarding how you present yourself

-You then label him as "some random _________ whose sole existence on this site has been to insult some opinion or another" (I'll renege on part of my previous statement since it was indirect)

-He responds back with a harsh word of his own

Both parties threw their punches of roughly the same wieght and got the same base punishment.

"Doubt whatever you want, but in the 5 days since, I've had time to read a lot of comments and you'd be surprised what's gone unmoderated, and how much of it was worse than what I said, some of it was even multiple instances of the SDF, XDF, and Xbot variety."

Sorry to see some you've seen some of those immature comments have snuck past (at least when you saw them--perhaps they were caught later).

"Ah well, 5 days are now over and nothing has changed."

Indeed, 5 days have past and users still enjoy placing blame on mods/admins when they're caught and rightly punished.

@Welcome2Die

"Looking back at his comments I noticed he had some sort of argument with coogndo or something.
Now it all makes sense."

Let me clear the air here and mention he's never had a part in giving any of DK's restrictions. And allow me to say goodno isn't the kind of character that would bottle up malice against a poster here who's just given him a lot of guff.
#1.1.4 (Edited 258d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(2) | Report
DragonKnight  +   258d ago
"there's a portion of a blog..."

What misinformation? That I was given an unduly harsh punishment for use of the word douchebag, a non-insult that runs rampant on the site on a daily basis completely unmoderated yet mine was heavily moderated thanks to the fact that the last time I was moderated was because I said Xbot, and XDF, more terminology that goes on rampant on the site every day unmoderated? Do I now need to start a screenshot series of comments you don't moderate to highlight the extent of the problem that is the moderation on this site just so you can finally admit that moderation has no standard here and is based on the individual mod's perception and judgement?

Oh of course stating that I'm on the verge of a mental breakdown based on my blogs and making other subtle personal insults isn't a personal attack. Whatever was I thinking. Douchebag is a serious offense, but a comparison of broken down mental states is perfectly fine right? See what I mean? No standards.

"Sure, your slight isn't the worst thing on here, but in the end still deserved moderation:"

The amount of things on this site that deserve moderation and don't receive it would be a full time job to compile a list on. In theory what you're saying sounds like a good moderation job, in practice it's akin to police officers pulling people over to ticket them so that they meet a monthly quota and actual offense, or degree of offense, becomes irrelevant.

"Sorry to see some you've seen some of those immature comments have snuck past (at least when you saw them--perhaps they were caught later)."

Typical mod response not based in fact. There was no "some" that "snuck past." I don't expect you to acknowledge it because you're not paying attention to them. Hell, I'm gonna start that screenshot series just for the hell of it, and then make a comparison of length of time the unmoderated comments remained on the site, repeat offenders who weren't punished for it, etc.. Just for my own information of course, no need to, as cgoodno put it, continue throwing mistakes in your faces.

"Indeed, 5 days have past and users still enjoy placing blame on mods/admins when they're caught and rightly punished."

Does the tone of my comments, or the portion of this blog discussing my restriction, have a tone of joviality and amusement to it? It's facts. I wrote a blog, I couldn't comment on it, I posted why. Given the severity of my restriction based on the comments, the punishment doesn't add up to the crime. You've had 2 users in here besides myself tell you this, but of course being a mod that doesn't matter to you. Call it enjoyment if you want, I assure you there's none in it as far as I'm concerned.

"Let me clear the air here and mention he's never had a part in giving any of DK's restrictions."

You haven't been a mod for as long as I've been here, so using the absolute "never" is not something you have the knowledge to state. Also, allow cgoodno to speak about his own character on his own. There's no need for you to defend him.

Now that that's been said, this comment will be the final one I make on this subject. I have a screenshot series to prepare, and discussing moderation shortcomings for the umpteenth time has become tiresome. I'll simply allow the shots to speak for themselves in the future.
Games4M - Rob  +   257d ago
One things for sure DragonKnight - this comments section was a lot better off when you were banned from commenting.

You come across as paranoid, arrogant, and completely obsessed that you are right and so therefore everyone must agree with you.

If you care this much about these petty things and truly believe there is some kind of moderator conspiracy against you then i think you need to step back, chill out and get a reality check.

Like i said it was quite a nice blog before you derailed it, shame.
#1.1.6 (Edited 257d ago ) | Agree(10) | Disagree(3) | Report
coolbeans  +   257d ago
--"What misinformation?"

Allow me to correct myself now in saying disinformation, instead of misinformation. I'll have to cut it into pieces:

"Author's Note: Due to the power trip, and/or grudge, of a particular individual, I am on day 3 of a 5 day comment restriction for rightfully calling someone who was personally attacking me..."

Here there's already 3 mistakes I can see:

-a false presumption as to why the punishment was given to you, as if bias is the ruling factor in the decision.

-the notion that you can "rightfully" insult someone on here. In previous mod run-ins, you've been told to either ignore it and let mods handle it (which we've shown in specific cases of someone harassing you in the past that we do follow up on it) or respond in a fashion that remains within the guidelines.

-the idea that Sleet's first comment could be considered him personally attacking you. To further this part:

"Oh of course stating that I'm on the verge of a mental breakdown based on my blogs and making other subtle personal insults isn't a personal attack."

Basing it off his perceived attitude of how you were responding...the context doesn't really fit for it being a personal attack. What...so now someone stating that you're feverishly writing blogs about non issues and calling the way you comment is akin to fanatical rantings can be perceived as other subtle personal insults?

What I've combed through above and the basic sugar-coating of your author's note presents inaccurate information that displays the intention of misleading the audience.

--"...yet mine was heavily moderated thanks to the fact that the last time I was moderated was because I said Xbot, and XDF,"

Now, now, now. I said that you were marked for both immature comments (which you stated above) and one marked as a personal attack. Don't try to white-wash that.

--"Do I now need to start a screenshot series of comments you don't moderate to highlight the extent of the problem that is the moderation on this site just so you can finally admit that moderation has no standard here and is based on the individual mod's perception and judgement?"

You don't need my permission to do something that will ultimately be futile.

--"In theory what you're saying sounds like a good moderation job, in practice it's akin to police officers pulling people over to ticket them so that they meet a monthly quota and actual offense, or degree of offense, becomes irrelevant."

That doesn't mean the "irrelevance" of your comment should now be glanced over. Some random reported Sleet's second comment, the comment and other comments were looked over, and a punishment was passed down. There's really nothing else to it.
#1.1.7 (Edited 257d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(1) | Report
coolbeans  +   257d ago
--"Typical mod response not based in fact. There was no "some" that "snuck past." I don't expect you to acknowledge it because you're not paying attention to them."

No, the phrasing of that was based in truth. Again, I'll certainly admit that not every instant of deserved punishment is given, but I'm not going to sit here believing for a moment those missed opportunities are in the majority. Choose to acknowledge that or not...makes no difference to me.

--"Given the severity of my restriction based on the comments, the punishment doesn't add up to the crime. You've had 2 users in here besides myself tell you this, but of course being a mod that doesn't matter to you."

Given the time in when they've responded, this could partly be blamed on your disinformation.

--"Does the tone of my comments, or the portion of this blog discussing my restriction, have a tone of joviality and amusement to it?"

There are many more ways of enjoying something then expressing it through jovial or amused tone. The consistency of your attitude towards someone that may either disagree with you and/or be in a level of authority on here gives an air that you..relish the moments in which you can act condescending.

--"You haven't been a mod for as long as I've been here, so using the absolute "never" is not something you have the knowledge to state."

Actually, it is. Every warning or restriction that has not been manually removed remains on everyone's profile (time of becoming a mod has nothing to do with it). In regards to your mod history, cgoodno isn't a name stamped to any of your punishments.

--"Also, allow cgoodno to speak about his own character on his own. There's no need for you to defend him."

First, me commenting about him in one of my responses hasn't disallowed him to speak on his own behalf.

Second, you're not going to tell me whom I can or cannot defend. Sure there was no need for it, but I still wanted to. When some random poster's leveling an accusation, or implying one, against someone on here who's on my short list of respectable n4g users, I'll be happy to jump in. Perhaps there will be day where I can do the same for you.

If there's one thing I'm sorry about is that this had to be dragged here, in effect poisoning the main topic you're trying to discuss. But then again, desperate times, right? When you're given the opportunity to discuss ALL of this restriction business in a ticket yet only use that opportunity to just tell us off again about failing in our jobs and then bring your dirty laundry here, I can't help but shake my head at this pathetic jab.
#1.1.8 (Edited 257d ago ) | Agree(7) | Disagree(1) | Report
maniacmayhem  +   260d ago
I know you like to focus your attention, blogs and comments mostly(all the time) on MS more than the other company but you need to understand that ALL companies have this.

A recent article was just posted on N4G:

"Francis commented on reddit that he had to follow a ‘strict set of rules’ on what he could and couldn’t show so that Sony could ‘maintain momentum’. The unit was taken back by Sid, it was needed for promo purpose elsewhere."

As you can see even Sony has a strict NDA in place for consumers who might get a PS4 early. No company wants an early user to steal their launch day thunder. I mean instead of just going off emotion Dragon, actually consider and think why a company would NOT want anyone to talk about their system or show it off before it's actual launch. Apply this to any form of media, whether it be music, movies or books.

What if that user purposely talks bad about the console? Wouldn't that influence a lot of people who are on the fence about a purchase. What if they show a feature that's not ready, maybe it needs a patch, this user isn't going to know this. To him it's just broke and since he has a wide media outlet like youtube all he has to do is post a sensational, N4G worthy title like: "Xbox One/PS4 feature doesn't work, Console not ready".

And you know the drill. Once that gets out every story will report it as fact. More bad publicity because someone doesn't know what's going on behind the scenes. And again MS has to go into PR mode and we'll get more blogs and comments from you regarding that as well.
(As we can already see with CoD on Xbox One, http://www.spawnfirst.com/n...

"the mere fact that Microsoft are so swift and arbitrary with banning people is disturbing."

Banning cheaters, hackers, trolls and online bullies is disturbing? They take action when something is wrong or if someone is abusive. Isn't this what a company should do? Or would you rather let these griefers continue to be a nuisance on Live. You act like MS is banning innocent users just for the hell of it.

"None of us agreed to the terms of a partnership that Microsoft has with any third party source, therefore we are not bound by the terms of those agreements."

Yes you do, we are all bound by some sort of ToS when we purchase a system and access THEIR services. It is pretty obvious that they had no intention of having the Xbox One shown off before launch.

"and consumer rights grant any consumer the right to full access and use of a product he/she paid for in full."

Just today when I turned on my PS3 it wouldn't allow me to access PSN unless I agreed to their ToS. You see Dragon, purchasing their console gives us full rights to do with the actual console as we please but that right does not extend to their services provided for that console.

Your last few paragraphs you seem to go on and on in a conspiracy filled rant. You say more and more gamers are being restricted and punished. Who are these gamers (with a S)being restricted and punished? I'm a gamer and I'm gaming now, so are millions of others around the world.

You really like to overblow and sensationalize your opinions I give you that much Dragon.

Edit:
Shame about the ban but then again a lot of us told you about your own name calling and personal attacks. I doubt the reason given is as one sided as you make it appear.
#2 (Edited 260d ago ) | Agree(16) | Disagree(5) | Report | Reply
s45gr32  +   260d ago
I am sorry but buying a console nowadays feels like prison you can't do this or that. I mean come on back in the day for NES, SNES and even PS one gamers were allowed to talk about the next generation consoles after getting one early but due to fear of bad advertisement well the gamer gets punished in contrast PC gamers can do as they please with their gaming experience.
XboxFun  +   260d ago
This makes no sense, Gamers can still talk to each other about a console if they get it early. This is what we call word of mouth.

There was no youtube, twitter or any other form of media outlet back in the NES, SNES or even the PS days. So back then you couldn't post all over the internet of a system you got early. This is where the problem is.
Stick89  +   259d ago
Here is the difference in the Francis situation and the Xbone situation.

Sony GAVE Francis, under certain terms (which you stated), a PS4 console strictly for promotional purposes. He accepted the console under said conditions.

Now this whole Xbone situation is entirely different. Microsoft did not give this individual his console, under specified conditions. He got this console, with his own money, under absolutely no strict conditions from Microsoft. Does it suck for Microsoft that he got the console early, well yeah. However they had no legal grounds to ban his console. He never agreed to any kind of terms and conditions as this was not sent to him for promotional purposes.
maniacmayhem  +   259d ago
Different circumstances but still the same reasons.

As I have mentioned in the above comment, getting your console early is no problem but when you connect it to be online that is where the problem comes in.

You always agree to a ToS when you sign up for any company's service. His account was banned because as stated no one is suppose to live on Live until the 22nd. You are using MS Xbox Live service and it is up to them at their discretion if they can ban you or not.

This is just the same as MS giving other journalists or reviewers access to the Xbox One and also telling them the same thing Sony told Francis.

Both companies want their UI/features kept under wraps for whatever reasons and they allow some to report on the features they were given permission to see and talk about. When you have someone who has gotten an early Xbox One for whatever reason you can see what trouble it may cause as example of the CoD and DRM articles we are now getting.
#2.2.1 (Edited 259d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(2) | Report
zeal0us  +   259d ago
"He never agreed to any kind of terms and conditions as this was not sent to him for promotional purposes."

I'm pretty sure the terms(or ToU) was either in the those little books or pieces he put aside or agree when setting up the system.

Most if not all Terms of Services agreements nowadays include a line

"We may ban your account for no reason at all"

I don't like it but we own the console not the services.
#2.2.2 (Edited 259d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report
Stick89  +   259d ago
@Manicmayhem

I'd like to know if in the ToS it specifically states he could not connect to live before the consoles actual release date (if you really can provide this info I'd appreciate it). Otherwise he is not under an NDA as he never signed up for it. Then it just falls into the category of what Zealous said and they are just going to lay down the banhammer because they feel like it.

No matter how you slice it, it's a shitty situation for everyone involved.
TomShoe  +   260d ago
"Microsoft may block or otherwise prevent delivery of any type of content, email, instant message, or other communication to or from the Services as part of our effort to protect the Services or our customers, or otherwise enforce this Agreement."

"If you violate this Agreement, we may take action against you including (without limitation) removing your content from the Services, suspending or cancelling your access to the Services,"

This is from Microsoft's Terms of Service. It's basically using the ToS as a very loose blanket statement to justify anything that the leaker had posted as a bannable offense so that they could stop him from leaking info and prevent any negative news about some features until launch.

This is similar to when people enter a public school. What most students don't know, is that when they enter public school property, they forfeit their rights to privacy, meaning that the school authorities may search then anytime they like, and without reason. If they find anything they don't like, you can be banned from school without recourse.

It sucks, but that's how it is. To use their service, we have to play by their rules.
#3 (Edited 260d ago ) | Agree(6) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
s45gr32  +   260d ago
Which sucks ass but I understand why public schools do it and that is to keep students mind from being filthy.
cyguration  +   258d ago
Not just their minds...
zerocrossing  +   260d ago
I dislike the idea that we're no longer "owners" of the games we purchase but merely "licensing the rights" It has been like this for a while now but it's amazing how many people aren't aware.
s45gr32  +   260d ago
Pretty much yeah we are just paying for the right to play on their systems under their rules and regulations.
Sleet  +   260d ago
5 day ban huh, that must suck :)

What i want to know with this whole episode is if MS banned this guys account then does that stop him playing his 360 online or is this specific to his Xbone ?
LtSkittles  +   260d ago
It is probably just for Xbone's, I don't think they'd ban his whole live account for twelve days. It was Target's fault, but they need to get the infrastructure stable for their launch, there's no way they'd ban the live accounts.
DragonKnight  +   258d ago
Oh don't worry Sleet, you'll be getting yours soon enough.
Sleet  +   257d ago
LOL, Is that supposed to be some kind of threat?
#6.2.1 (Edited 257d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(0) | Report
wtopez  +   259d ago
Holy solid blog Batman! Sincerely Kudos for bringing the Blog section to the standard it should be at all times. I think that all of your points have a lot more hits than near misses and I say that with the hope that you understand that in my opinion your misses are more in alignment with my personal opinions of what hardware regulations should be in general. Be that as it may, at the end of the day whatever ToS was agreed to by the kid who got the Xbox early melds with whatever a non disclosure agreement is for Microsoft. The issue is that if anyone has a buffet of ninja lawyers, it's Microsoft. Right next to General Electric who gets to pay no taxes(but that's a whole different subject).
TransientDreamer  +   259d ago
"Every day, gamers are being punished more and more just for being gamers and acting the way we all used to back in the old school days."
Because we always used to get consoles two weeks before launch and utilize their unprepared and unfinished online services a whole two weeks before release (and publicize that fact). Right? Wrong. We're not back in the day.

"None of us agreed to the terms of a partnership that Microsoft has with any third party source, therefore we are not bound by the terms of those agreements."
You're bound by the terms of service when you purchase the console. You seem to be taking this harder than the guy that was banned.

"Gamers are being restricted and punished so that corporations can honour their agreements with other corporations."
"It seems like every day, more and more excuses to punish or restrict gamers are invented. It's almost as though being a gamer, in the eyes of corporations, is the wrong demographic to be in and needs to be quashed immediately in favour of drones of the mainstream, pro-corporate, mass consumption variety. We, as gamers, are shown that what we want is wrong, what corporate wants is right, and that really needs to stop."
No, just, no.
DragonKnight  +   258d ago
Because your sarcasm is so relevant right? I love people so narrow-minded that they have to have a direct, 1:1 correlation when examples are used. Just because we're not "back in the day" is no justification for punishing gamers, no matter how pro-corporate you are.

Terms of Service isn't an NDA and there is no clause that states "you accept that you can't post information about the device online if you get it early." There's nothing even close to that. Just general, broad language that could mean anything so stupid people feel frightened by doing something that isn't wrong and give the company an excuse to do something illegal. Why else do you think Moonlightswami (I think that's his name) was given free stuff from Microsoft? Because they knew they were in the wrong, albeit after they were made to look stupid online, about banning the console for no reason.

Yes, just yes.
TransientDreamer  +   258d ago
"There's nothing even close to that."
It has been quoted already in this thread: Microsoft can terminate your service at any time, for whatever reason. Whether you want to believe it or not, having a console two weeks before launch is excessive, especially when some of the services aren't even ready for the masses. These are things that people have worked on for years - you don't take something like that lightly.

"Just general, broad language that could mean anything so stupid people feel frightened by doing something that isn't wrong and give the company an excuse to do something illegal"
Really? What illegality is there? Do you say this from your experience as an attorney? No, you're just saying it's illegal because you don't personally like it.

These companies have legal departments and have to adhere to laws, patents, fcc regulations, etc. to prevent them from selling a product that would infringe on the consumer's rights.

"Why else do you think Moonlightswami was given free stuff from Microsoft? Because they knew they were in the wrong, albeit after they were made to look stupid online, about banning the console for no reason."
I'm sorry but this reads like sheer bias and paranoia.

You see it as them admitting "guilt." I see it as a decent gesture. They could have just given him the temp ban and left it at that - but they didn't.
DragonKnight  +   258d ago
"It has been quoted already in this thread: Microsoft can terminate your service at any time, for whatever reason."

Is NOT an NDA and if fought Microsoft WOULD LOSE! A ToS is supposed to act like a contract between Microsoft and the user and yet it's not worded like one. Only idiots would think that the ToS is like an NDA in terminology and that MS saying "yeah, we can cut you off because you looked at us funny" is in any way defensible. Sorry, but you're wrong. It's not even remotely the same. A user is not agreeing to not talk about the console online. That requires an NDA which has specific language and conditions. VERY different.

"Really? What illegality is there? Do you say this from your experience as an attorney? No, you're just saying it's illegal because you don't personally like it."

So you're trying to tell me that it's NOT illegal to prevent the use of a product you paid for and obtained legally? You do understand that ToS' have been thrown out of court because of just such a reason right? Even worse, do you remember when Apple tried to sue the person who jailbroke his iPhone because AT&T was a sh*tty network service and he wanted something better? Apple tried to use the ToS as justification for their suit and it was thrown out because it was blatantly anti-consumer and pro-control. Preventing someone from using a product, and the Xbox One is a PRODUCT, that they bought and paid for legitimately is ILLEGAL! Microsoft's gripe is with Target. Even Microsoft knows this which is why they gave that user free stuff to appease him and avoid a mess.

"I'm sorry but this reads like sheer bias and paranoia."

Then you have reading comprehension problems that I can't help you with.

"You see it as them admitting "guilt." I see it as a decent gesture. They could have just given him the temp ban and left it at that - but they didn't."

Because Microsoft is known for their decent gestures after console bans right? I'm sure you have a list compiled of all the individuals unfairly banned who were then given stuff from Microsoft for us to see don't you?
TransientDreamer  +   257d ago
"So you're trying to tell me that it's NOT illegal to prevent the use of a product you paid for and obtained legally?"
Stop acting like the kid strolled in to the store on launch day and walked out with a console.

Target accidentally sent it to him two weeks prior, granted that is an issue between Microsoft and Target, but that doesn't mean Microsoft can't curtail the kid's online activities in the meantime until the 22nd. They have every right to.

Real people have worked on these systems and Xbox Live, and it's unfair to them to have their unfinished work broadcast out before its due date.

The kid still gets to play his games offline, and Microsoft gets to release their console unimpeded on the 22nd. Everyone wins.

"Then you have reading comprehension problems that I can't help you with."
I'm sorry, but you'll have to do better than that.

"I'm sure you have a list compiled of all the individuals unfairly banned who were then given stuff from Microsoft for us to see don't you?"
I'm not talking about every Xbox user that has ever been banned. I'm talking about this specific situation. Try again.
DragonKnight  +   257d ago
"Stop acting like the kid strolled in to the store on launch day and walked out with a console."

I'm not, you're trying to make my argument seem that way because you can't conceive of the fact that just because the store screwed up and sent him his console early, doesn't mean he didn't follow legitimate procedures to obtain a console. He bought and paid for the console, therefore he's entitled to use said console and all of its features the very second he gets it. That's just fact.

"but that doesn't mean Microsoft can't curtail the kid's online activities in the meantime until the 22nd. They have every right to."

No they don't. They have the right to suspend the service for EVERYONE if it's not ready, they don't have the right to block his access when he did nothing wrong. They didn't suspend the service outright, they banned his console and he did nothing to deserve the ban.

"Real people have worked on these systems and Xbox Live, and it's unfair to them to have their unfinished work broadcast out before its due date."

This is the sound of the world's smallest violin being played.

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

For one thing, it's not unfair that someone gets to use the service, especially since MS could have easily kept the service offline until launch and decided not to. Secondly, someone using the service isn't inherently a bad thing regardless of its completion. There is merit in saying "well, some things might not be finished so keep that in mind" and going from there, but the people who worked on the service aren't losing any money or work hours just because someone uses the service early and decides to tell people about it. Most of that service is complete, not much will be added in 2 weeks that is a huge game changer so any fallout would be dismissed by the phrase "it's not finished yet."

"The kid still gets to play his games offline, and Microsoft gets to release their console unimpeded on the 22nd. Everyone wins."

Implying they couldn't do that without banning him.

"I'm sorry, but you'll have to do better than that."

I don't have to "do better" than anything. What your conclusions are about my statements based on your comprehension of what I'm saying has nothing to do with me and everything to do with you. You said "this reads as blah blah blah" which is a subjective statement inherent to you and you alone. Therefore, your reading comprehension skills can be called into question for reaching a conclusion that isn't based on neither fact nor intent.

"I'm not talking about every Xbox user that has ever been banned. I'm talking about this specific situation. Try again."

Irrelevant. You tried to use Microsoft's uncharacteristic generosity as an argument against their guilt, saying that it's just a decent gesture. Microsoft aren't known for "decent gestures" when it comes to console bans. They simply ban outright and, under normal circumstances, don't care to look into if they had a legitimate reason to ban. The ONLY time they've EVER made "decent gestures" is when they KNEW they were in the wrong and that not doing so would bring them a world of PR hurt.

Nice try, E for Effort, but just like Microsoft, you're wrong.

**EDIT** @XboxFun: Fortunately for you I don't have enough room to dismantle your fanboyism. Have fun playing the corporation handbook game if you want, it's still not an NDA.
#8.1.4 (Edited 257d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(6) | Report
XboxFun  +   257d ago
@Dragon

Are you new to business? You know when you walk into a store or any place and you read the sign "We have the right to refuse service", this is a broad statement that could be applied to ANY situation and is up to that place of business to decided how to enforce it.

Sony, Nintendo and MS have these same terms written out. They don't have to be specific they just need to be worded in a way that can be applied to any situation. Damn near every poster under your blog has tried to tell you this simple fact and yet you are still refusing to understand it.

You claim what MS did was illegal, under what law? How about you provide some sort of legal line or clause that states what they did was illegal. MS did not steal his Xbox One, they did not tell him to take it back, all they did was block his access to Xbox One's Live ONLY, because... Xbox One's Live is not ready and they do not want it publicized on the net. Is this such a hard concept to get?

He still has his Xbox One that he paid for at the store. He still owns it, he can't use the service because THE SERVICE IS NOT READY TO BE USED! MS denied him access because the service is not ready to be used and shown to the public. You know, just like Sony hasn't shown any of their UI up until a few days before launch. How they are also taking down videos of people posting their UI. And how reports of their UI not working either. These are situations every company wants to avoid because it doesn't mean their services are bad they're just not ready.

His 360 account still works and his Xbox One account still works plus it can play games OFFLINE.

MS contacted this person because it was the right thing to do. Because they did not want any hard feelings with this guy. I find it strange that you just can't accept that it was a kind act, no, your bias of MS is so strong that everything they do has some hidden evil motive.

You don't seem to understand that YOU are accessing this companies services and therefore you are agreeing to their terms of service. Sony has this, MS has this and Nintendo has this. How many of us are going to have to explain this to you?

Edit:
How unfortunate for me I guess. You are so focused on how wrong you are that you refuse to see what everyone is trying to tell you and can't even understand their points. There's no debating with you, you will argue your point no matter how absurdly wrong they are. Have fun blaming MS for everything wrong in life.
#8.1.5 (Edited 257d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(1) | Report
TransientDreamer  +   257d ago
"He bought and paid for the console, therefore he's entitled to use said console and all of its features the very second he gets it. That's just fact."
No, it's really not a fact.

"This is the sound of the world's smallest violin being played."
This is my favorite nonsensical reply on the internet.

You would want to protect your work too, sir.

"MS could have easily kept the service offline until launch"
Yeah, Microsoft just need to hit the giant red off-switch in Bill Gates' office. It's so easy. You say this from your years of experience in the field of game development?

"You tried to use Microsoft's uncharacteristic generosity as an argument against their guilt, saying that it's just a decent gesture."
Sigh, "guilt." Yes, I can do that, and I have. Repeating yourself doesn't make you "more right." Their history of bans has no bearing on this situation. Period.
steve30x  +   259d ago
"Just because Microsoft weren't ready for certain details to be revealed to the world (and one must wonder what exactly they need to reveal in 2 weeks), doesn't mean that that's the gamer's problem. None of us ever sign an NDA as consumers, and NDA's are contracts that have very specific terminology and rules which must be understood fully before being signed under law. "

Thats where you are wrong. If you are in a closed beta you are bound by an NDA that you have to agree with. I've had to agree to a few NDA's over the past few years when I was beta testing games or hardware.

"Author's Note: Due to the power trip, and/or grudge, of a particular individual, I am on day 3 of a 5 day comment restriction for rightfully calling someone who was personally attacking me in my previous blog a "random douchebag." As I serve this punishment of unnecessary severity, I'll not be able to comment in my own blog or make any replies. To the many that are jumping for joy over this, enjoy the reprieve for its duration. To the rest of you, I will reply when I can, or if you'd like I can PM my replies to you directly. "

I got a 24 hour posting ban a few days ago for telling the truth that the TOS on the XBOX one states that you have to keep your personal details up to date for the advertisers so I said

"Xbox live will be better on Xbox one because you are forced to sell your soul to the advertisers. "

So I got flagged for trolling. Go figure. People dont like to hear the facts on here
#9 (Edited 259d ago ) | Agree(6) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login
Remember