Get banned on your Xbox One? Say good-bye to your games!

[stabnex]

I make no excuses for Microsoft, their many evils speak for themselves, but this issue was cleared up here
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/125064-Xbox-One-Games-Will-Still-be-Playable-When-Servers-Shut-Down.

 

[Seydaman]

Isn't this exactly the same with Steam and Origin? I don't see what's bad about it. It should help prevent hacking in multiplayer games and hopefully make the community more civil seeing as there is an actual risk in being an asshole.

Then there is also the point they didn't say what is necessary for a ban. It most likely wont be for small stuff like occasional swearing on xbox live but might happen if you act like a total ass to many people and it takes a significant reason (death threats or something).

No, you can continue to play all your games when you are VAC banned on Steam. That is the ban for using hacks and cheats in competitive games. You just can't connect to VAC protected servers.

 

[Gergar12_v1legacy]

I never been wronged by a hacker, I even been helped by one in mass effect with the unlimited rocket, but i still wont get a xbox1, and hackers are annoying on pc. I will say that the reason I brought an xbox360 was for fallout nv, and now since the ps4 is closer to pc, and easier to make games for the choice is clear, I actuary wanted both, but its not worth it now. I never been much of a console wars guy either.

 

[Vigormortis]

snip

Microsoft can deny access to your entire library. Steam can deny access to your entire library. Origin can deny access to your entire library. This is the general level at which I am talking. I don't care when they may do it. They can, and shouldn't be able to. I don't care if it's something illegal. That was still a legitimate transaction of money for game, and the owner of a product should be able to do what they like with it.

And yet, at least in Steam's case, you still can.

As long as you still have the games on your harddrive, you can still play them. A full account "ban" simply blocks access to the Steam servers for that account.

It's not as if Valve goes into you computer and deletes the requisite files.

So, as long as you have your games installed or backed-up (which, if you're relying on DD services, you should) you can still play those games on Steam. You just can't access the Steam servers to redownload them.

Now yes, I agree that in a sense that's like denying the customer access to their purchased products However, using a digital service comes with a certain level of responsibility both for the provider and the consumer. And, as the consumer, not having backups is the equivalent of throwing away your physical discs and relying solely on the game installed on your harddrive.

As to the types of banning though, yep, I've mistaken console banning and account banning. But Major Nelson has said in a number of interviews that being account banned will not revoke singleplayer access to games.

To be fair, "Major Nelson" has said a lot of things over the past weeks/months. Some have been true. Others blatant fabrications or exaggerations.

As such, and given the rather deflective nature of many of his responses in those videos and interviews, the validity of his statement is dubious at best.

Until the official FAQ and support pages confirm his claim, it's nothing more than a baseless promise.

Besides, I'm left wondering:
If an Xbox One account ban blocks access to the Live servers, and the One requires a once-every-24-hour check-in, then how will banned users still be able to play their singleplayer games? Perhaps for the first day, but afterward...

Like I said, his claims seem rather dubious.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

snip

And yet, at least in Steam's case, you still can.

As long as you still have the games on your harddrive, you can still play them. A full account "ban" simply blocks access to the Steam servers for that account.

It's not as if Valve goes into you computer and deletes the requisite files.

So, as long as you have your games installed or backed-up (which, if you're relying on DD services, you should) you can still play those games on Steam. You just can't access the Steam servers to redownload them.

Now yes, I agree that in a sense that's like denying the customer access to their purchased products However, using a digital service comes with a certain level of responsibility both for the provider and the consumer. And, as the consumer, not having backups is the equivalent of throwing away your physical discs and relying solely on the game installed on your harddrive.

Point taken. If you're worried about your consumer rights you should be actively making sure you are in a secure position when it's available.

As to the types of banning though, yep, I've mistaken console banning and account banning. But Major Nelson has said in a number of interviews that being account banned will not revoke singleplayer access to games.

To be fair, "Major Nelson" has said a lot of things over the past weeks/months. Some have been true. Others blatant fabrications or exaggerations.

As such, and given the rather deflective nature of many of his responses in those videos and interviews, the validity of his statement is dubious at best.

Until the official FAQ and support pages confirm his claim, it's nothing more than a baseless promise.

Besides, I'm left wondering:
If an Xbox One account ban blocks access to the Live servers, and the One requires a once-every-24-hour check-in, then how will banned users still be able to play their singleplayer games? Perhaps for the first day, but afterward...

Like I said, his claims seem rather dubious.

He's also said games will be playable after the console is no longer supported with servers, so my general idea is that either both statements are false or there's a way to play games offline that just isn't going to be in place during the console's lifespan. Which is silly. Maybe we should just wait for a more legitimate source.

 

[Vigormortis]

Point taken. If you're worried about your consumer rights you should be actively making sure you are in a secure position when it's available.

Which I do. And, as I did in my last post, I try to inform people that they should do the same.

I dream of a day when "always on" is again only ever applicable to the most staunch of MMOs.

He's also said games will be playable after the console is no longer supported with servers, so my general idea is that either both statements are false or there's a way to play games offline that just isn't going to be in place during the console's lifespan. Which is silly. Maybe we should just wait for a more legitimate source.

My thoughts exactly. Nelson's comments have been so contradictory lately I have a hard time believing anything he says. Same goes for many of the news sites covering these event.

As such, at this point, Microsoft really, really needs to come out and just be straightforward with the community. Any negative comments they may make can't possibly be any more damaging than the rumors and bad PR they're already suffering from.

Even if Microsoft don't make an official statement prior to November, things will become abundantly clear upon the Ones release. Then we'll all know (most of) the truth, regardless of what Microsoft is claiming.

 

[Savagezion]

While Im pretty sure you're just stirring, playing the devils advocate for the fun of it, or taking such a hard stance because its MS, I'll respond anyway.

You have to co-exist in society. If you go out for dinner and you're an assclown, you get kicked out without your dinner or your money. If you go to a concert, and fuck with people, you get kicked out without a refund. I could go on, as this applies anywhere where people interact together in groups, while a service or product is being provided.

Actually, I just believe in this. If you get kicked out of Target or Best Buy, they don't have the right to confiscate items you bought while in the store. A restaraunt and a concert are both services, not products. A CD is a product and a cheeseburger is a product. However, once I have paid for those, you don't have the right to take it back. If I go to McDonald's buy a cheeseburger then act like an assclown, they can kick me out, but they can't take what I have legally purchased.

Digital games distributors have been advertised as a store. If I buy something at a store, you can kick me out of the store but you can't have what I paid for because by law it is now mine, not yours to take away. On Steam my library is MY library, not theirs. They can kick me off their multiplayer servers, which they provide as a service but not take what I have purchased. I still get to keep my games to play singleplayer or on servers that are not Steam's.

The reason I am arguing this is because this is the problem with how the game industry gets away with shitty practices; consumers just handing their rights over to them and thinking it is a good thing. God forbid someone gets their feelings hurt online and the offender isn't robbed of their rights. Doing that is not OK no matter how much you wish that would happen to people. It doesn't matter what they said or did, they bought the game to do with as they saw fit. They just saw fit to stir trouble and get kicked out of the community. You want to ban them? I have no problem with that. You want to take away something that is lawfully someone elses? Hell no. That falls under theft as well as a duress. "Do X or I will take your money". It is almost a form of extortion. I don't see that as "good" in any scenario.

Aaaactually, the right to end a license for 'any reason' has been in every software ToS ever, including all of the consoles. That actually was put into effect in the 90s.

Doesn't change that its vile and wrong, but the law is on their side.

It's bogus though because by buying a hard copy, not a digital copy, that disc and console are mine. You are not allowed to take it back. I highly doubt even US courts would allow Playstation to take it back due to the first sales doctrine. That is now my property to do with as I see fit. I can be banned from service but not from what I have legally purchased.

But that's the thing, We AGREE to it. We have to in order to even access the software. So, regardless of how off the wall retarded the idea is, we can't dispute it because we agree to the Terms of Service which stipulates that we are not purchasing ownership.

This is how it is and it is how it has been for nearly 25 years. It IS wrong and it IS vile, but they've been allowed to. THey have lawyers that can back this up. It would take a MASSIVE consumer uprising to change this.

And yes, the US courts have sided with these corporations many times in the past. The Geohot case was one. The class action over the 'Other OS' being taken away was also sided with Sony.

Right now the old codgers in the US court system are having a hard time understanding the digital marketplace. It probably seems like crazy alien technology or something, I don't know. However, they seem to be somewhat easily dazzled and unable to understand that it is just like physical products because publishers are making it overly complex on purpose. Kinda like how they do to many consumers with the cloud aka "free magical computational bandwidth from heaven"

Your buddy's dad may not realize that with games if you dont agree to the EULA you just spent 60 non-refundable dollars on a game you can't play because you don't agree to terms you were unaware of at the time of the purchase. Publishers just got done fighting to make sure an opened copy of a game cannot be returned. Hell, even now they are fighting to make it so that you cant sell it to someone else. Under that model, the EULA is a contract signed under the duress of being robbed of $60. You have no choice but to sign the contract. That's why practically no one reads them, doesn't matter what it says, you have to agree.

The difference is Microsoft could have in its terms of service that the DRM is a service and by losing access to that service you lose access to the games you bought indirectly. That hits a grey area that doesnt easily sway in the consumers favor because you actually bought a copy of the game to run on the XBL network. That is a specific distribution model. Like PS3/Wii/360. Just because you buy it on one doesn't entitle you to a copy on other systems.

P.S. Geohotz had way too many unknowables about it for anyone to make heads or tails of what happened. I suspect he got paid to shut up or something. This guy was a huge vocal thorn in Sony's ass and then one day a settlement happened and they were best of friends.