Microsoft and the Xbox

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

They do not intend to ever buy legitimate software

This is simply not supported by the facts. More, even if they never buy a retail game, if they buy from XBLA then they're still spending cash on games.

And no, it's not acceptable that a lot of people who did not mod their console get banned. Writing off customers is why big music has screwed itself. It can recover, games in the same situation? Wouldn't, the investment scales involved are too large.

As for how it is working out for the music industry........the situations may be similar but they are not the same.

They're near-as identical. In both, there are large numbers of people who don't legitimately purchase everything they want to play/listen to, and a very small minority who don't purchase anything they want to play/listen to.

Firstly, my original statement was that regardless of the advertising, purchase of the Xbox does not bestow any right to access the Xbox live service. You claimed this was not so.

Microsoft have, by their UK adverts, established a link. This is...their own choice, and they have to take the consequences for that. Note I consider this misguided and unfortunate on their part. Also, again, I'm sorry but you're simply showing ignorance of UK contract law.

And there is a free tier of online service, if you hadn't noticed. Notably, XBLA is accessable from it and you can buy games from there.


Wiping accounts wipes *virtual* property. The psycology simply is that this will piss a lot less people off in a permermant sense, but it's actually a bigger short-term hit to their self esteem. More, it's not environmentally friendly to permerantly ban consoles (And yes, that is an issue for me).

As to the "let it die"...which of the big music companies is innovating? Which of the big publishers? In games, the biggest publishers, EA and Activision, are some of the main drivers. It's not the same, and neither are the investment scales. The games industry can and is adapting, rather than standing still. The console platform holders are the only ones really standing still at this point, and Sony is at least trying (Nintendo basically don't give a shit, except on handheld, and Microsoft are as usual their own worst enemy).

Rubbishing survey results is all very well, but that was allready compensated for...you're simply finding excuses to avoid looking at the real issues. And yes, those pirates are going to slag off Microsoft instead, and offer to help mod other people's Xboxes.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

This is simply not supported by the facts. More, even if they never buy a retail game, if they buy from XBLA then they're still spending cash on games.

Sorry but it is supported by the facts. It's just not supported by surveys in which people do not wish to give their true motives.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

And no, it's not acceptable that a lot of people who did not mod their console get banned. Writing off customers is why big music has screwed itself. It can recover, games in the same situation? Wouldn't, the investment scales involved are too large.

I've said all along that no one should be banned if they have done nothing wrong. I've said that I think MS should seek to improve the way they verify if an Xbox has been modded. However, to think that mistakes will never be made is simply not "pragmatic" and to base all decisions on the basis of ensuring that no innocent bystander gets improperly banned will result in no one being banned. Which will result in those with modded Xboxes continuing to cheat online and pissing off the rest of the legitimate Xbox live community.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

They're near-as identical. In both, there are large numbers of people who don't legitimately purchase everything they want to play/listen to, and a very small minority who don't purchase anything they want to play/listen to.

So in one paragraph you are saying the situations are not the same because of the investment scales and in the next you are saying they are basically identical. hhhmmmm

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Microsoft have, by their UK adverts, established a link. This is...their own choice, and they have to take the consequences for that. Note I consider this misguided and unfortunate on their part. Also, again, I'm sorry but you're simply showing ignorance of UK contract law.

Ok, as soon as MS are found guilty of false advertising I await the judgement that all Xbox owners are then allowed free access to Xbox live without any requirement to abide by the terms and conditions.

Until that time we will just have to agree to disagree on that one.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

And there is a free tier of online service, if you hadn't noticed. Notably, XBLA is accessable from it and you can buy games from there.

It may be free but there are still terms and conditions one must abide by in order to be allowed to use it. So again, until that judgement comes through we can agree to disagree on that one.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Wiping accounts wipes *virtual* property. The psycology simply is that this will piss a lot less people off in a permermant sense, but it's actually a bigger short-term hit to their self esteem. More, it's not environmentally friendly to permerantly ban consoles (And yes, that is an issue for me).

That is still a stick not a carrot. Didn't you say MS should be looking at carrots instead of sticks?

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

As to the "let it die"...which of the big music companies is innovating? Which of the big publishers? In games, the biggest publishers, EA and Activision, are some of the main drivers. It's not the same, and neither are the investment scales. The games industry can and is adapting, rather than standing still. The console platform holders are the only ones really standing still at this point, and Sony is at least trying (Nintendo basically don't give a shit, except on handheld, and Microsoft are as usual their own worst enemy).

So now it's only if the big companies are innovating that things should be different? You didn't that mention originally.

Anyway, apple is innovating so there you go.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Rubbishing survey results is all very well, but that was allready compensated for...you're simply finding excuses to avoid looking at the real issues. And yes, those pirates are going to slag off Microsoft instead, and offer to help mod other people's Xboxes.

You know the old saying........there are lies, damn lies and statistics! Well surveys are just statistics. And here's an eye opener for you......people lie!!! Even to themselves!! I know, hard to believe. But people will almost always try to paint themselves in a better light than they truly are. If they can say they want to pirate software because they don't like being treated like a thief rather than because they want free stuff then they almost always will.

Anyway, we are going round in circles now so I'm done. Hopefully one day everyone with modded Xboxes who dearly desire to buy legitimate software and have no desire to cheat and only modded their Xbox so they could.......uumm, I don't know, change the colour of the dashboard or something like that..........will be allowed back onto Xbox live and can live happily ever after and those that modded them in order to play pirated software will not be allowed onto Live. Then everyone will be happy.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[DawnFalcon]

No, because they could do things better right now. The false positives (again, they've done this very badly), the way they're excluding revenue streams...it's not good, at all.

If you want to ignore UK law and surveys, that's fine, but it really dosn't inspire me to respond to your posts. Apple are not a music or book company, either.

And once more, cheating on live has very very little to do with modding the xbox! They're done in different ways, and while they may be some overlap, banning modders will not affect cheaters per-se. Sigh.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

No, because they could do things better right now. The false positives (again, they've done this very badly), the way they're excluding revenue streams...it's not good, at all.

Show me a company that can't do things better! Of course they could do things better. I've agreed with that from the beginning. That doesn't mean they must do things better though. It doesn't mean that the rights of MS to run its business as it sees fit is any less important than someones right to mod their Xbox.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

If you want to ignore UK law and surveys, that's fine, but it really dosn't inspire me to respond to your posts. Apple are not a music or book company, either.

I'm only ignoring your flawed understanding of UK law.

I'm not ignoring surveys, I'm just not taking them as god given truth or indisputable facts.

Apple may not make music but it certainly sells music. It is probably the number one driving force for change in the music sales business.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

And once more, cheating on live has very very little to do with modding the xbox! They're done in different ways, and while they may be some overlap, banning modders will not affect cheaters per-se. Sigh.

There is overlap and modding can allow cheating. Simple facts. Ergo, banning modders will affect at least some cheaters.

The fact that there are other ways to cheat does not mean that modding does not also allow cheating. The fact that banning modders will not stop all cheating does not mean it wont stop some.

Now I really am done.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[DawnFalcon]

Um, you're totally ignoring the fact that unfair terms can and are stripped from contracts if a civil case against a company is successfully brought. Indeed, I suggest you read up on automatically unfair terms...

And there's also an significant overlap between 16-18 year olds and modders. Should 16-18 year olds be automatically banned? The argument you make is ridiculous, they're not tied to each other and detecting mods does not mean you've detected a hack.

And so... you think it's okay when a company screws itself and its customer base and an entire industry for that matter and nobody should tell them they're doing it wrong, they should just shut up and go away? (Yes, this is an "are you a troll" question)

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

... It doesn't mean that the rights of MS to run its business as it sees fit is any less important than someones right to mod their Xbox....

Again:

(a) MS advertises that the purchase of an XBOX gives you the benefits of Live (for a fee):
(b) you have been paying for Live fair and square;
(c) MS has used modding as a competitive advantage, by conveniently failing to enforce modding restrictions, which over time has made its product more attractive precisely to those who are interested in modding.

There is a good argument, that there are some implied rights for those, who have modded for reasons other than stealing software (such as back ups.)

If services such as Netflix streaming are affected, which clearly have nothing to do with stealing software or cheating, then Microsoft is on even shakier ground.

For what it's worth, I do believe, that at least part of the reason for this action, is an attempt to boost sales to those who like Live, and are willing to fork out another $200 to get it back before the holidays. I also hope that it backfires, and sales of the ugly, noisy beast fall...

Originally Posted by PKFFW

... Apple may not make music but it certainly sells music. It is probably the number one driving force for change in the music sales business.

And again, Apple's big stick against the content providers' attempts to force over $2 per song prices, was the threat of markedly increase "piracy."

Thus, in a generally non-competitive market, such as music, movies, or books, "piracy" often exerts downward pressure on prices and creates a de facto competitive market. Which may not be a bad thing for all consumers.

Cheers to you too.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Um, you're totally ignoring the fact that unfair terms can and are stripped from contracts if a civil case against a company is successfully brought. Indeed, I suggest you read up on automatically unfair terms...

Now you are changing your argument.

You claimed that MS advertising stated or created an expectation that buying an Xbox gave the right to access Xbox live. I claimed this was not so and that even if they implied it and were found guilty of false advertising this would not automatically give the right for those who have purchased an Xbox to access Live.

Now you are arguing that the terms and conditions may be deemed unfair. That is entirely different. I agree that if a court rules the terms and conditions of Xbox live are unfair then those rules will be overturned. However, even this will not automatically grant the right to access Xbox live to all Xbox owners free of charge and without having to abide by any terms and conditions that remain.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

And there's also an significant overlap between 16-18 year olds and modders. Should 16-18 year olds be automatically banned? The argument you make is ridiculous, they're not tied to each other and detecting mods does not mean you've detected a hack.

I wondered how long it would take you to build a straw man.

You claimed modding does not allow cheating and that by banning modders you would have no affect on cheaters. Now, whether you like to admit it or not modding can and does allow cheating. It is not the only way to cheat. It may not even be the easiest way to cheat. However, it can allow cheating. I know this for a fact. Therefore by banning modders you will affect the number of cheaters.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

And so... you think it's okay when a company screws itself and its customer base and an entire industry for that matter and nobody should tell them they're doing it wrong, they should just shut up and go away? (Yes, this is an "are you a troll" question)

No I don't. By all means whinge and whine about bad old MS all you like.

Just don't put your whines forward as god given truth and undeniable fact. And don't claim your opinion is "the right way to do things" when it is clearly only your opinion.

And no I'm not a troll.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Sonist

Again:

(a) MS advertises that the purchase of an XBOX gives you the benefits of Live (for a fee):

For a fee and on the condition that you adhere to the terms of service.

Originally Posted by Sonist

(b) you have been paying for Live fair and square;

Paying for yes, obeying the terms of service, no.

Originally Posted by Sonist

(c) MS has used modding as a competitive advantage, by conveniently failing to enforce modding restrictions, which over time has made its product more attractive precisely to those who are interested in modding.

Banning people from live is not enforcing modding restrictions?

Originally Posted by Sonist

There is a good argument, that there are some implied rights for those, who have modded for reasons other than stealing software (such as back ups.)

Ok, that I can agree with. There is a good argument for..........that is entirely different to "if you buy an Xbox you have the right to access Xbox live without any obligation to abide by the terms of service." Further, there being a good argument for something does not mean that the law will agree anyway.

Originally Posted by Sonist

If services such as Netflix streaming are affected, which clearly have nothing to do with stealing software or cheating, then Microsoft is on even shakier ground.

Netflix has to do with accessing Xbox live if I'm not mistaken. The terms of service do not state that you will only be banned from playing games. They say you will be banned from Xbox live if you mod your Xbox.

Originally Posted by Sonist

For what it's worth, I do believe, that at least part of the reason for this action, is an attempt to boost sales to those who like Live, and are willing to fork out another $200 to get it back before the holidays. I also hope that it backfires, and sales of the ugly, noisy beast fall...

I agree, it most likely is but thems the chances you take if you want to mod your Xbox.

Originally Posted by Sonist

And again, Apple's big stick against the content providers' attempts to force over $2 per song prices, was the threat of markedly increase "piracy."

Thus, in a generally non-competitive market, such as music, movies, or books, "piracy" often exerts downward pressure on prices and creates a de facto competitive market. Which may not be a bad thing for all consumers.

Cheers to you too.

My point about Apple is they are a company involved in the music industry that is attempting to implement new ways of doing business. Something DawnFalcon claimed no company was doing. The reasons for it don't interest me.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

... there being a good argument for something does not mean that the law will agree anyway.
...

Ah, but many a EULA provision has been invalidated based on "a good argument." In a court of law. That's the whole point.

It's a balance. And I'd be surprised, if MS doesn't get sued over this, and settle.

It really was a stupid move, kind of like Amazon's deletion of content was, a few months ago.

And just curious, what exactly are you arguing for? Some weird form of a "free market," where seller/provider terms make law, without any consumer protection, and I suppose, without anti-trust scheme?

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Now you are changing your argument.

No, it's been my argument all along. As I said, you simply don't understand UK civil contract law.

And right, you're trolling. My bad for everyone else for the feeding.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Sonist

Ah, but many a EULA provision has been invalidated based on "a good argument." In a court of law. That's the whole point.

But this one hasn't so arguing as if it has seems slightly illogical to me.

Originally Posted by Sonist

It's a balance. And I'd be surprised, if MS doesn't get sued over this, and settle.

It really was a stupid move, kind of like Amazon's deletion of content was, a few months ago.

Stupid move or not I don't see MS getting sued over this and if they are I certainly don't think they will be settling.

Why? Two reasons....
1: Because the Xbox and the Xbox live service are two different products

2: Because the T&C's clearly state if you mod your Xbox you will be banned. There is nothing illegal about those T&C's. MS are not saying you may not mod your Xbox. MS are not taking away any of your rights.

At worst MS may be guilty of false advertising if someone can argue there is a clear and unambiguous assertion by MS in their advertising that purchase of an Xbox confers some sort of right to access Xbox live without any obligation to abide by the T&C's. Somehow I don't see that argument getting up in court unless the ads MS use truly are so remarkably different in the UK than elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Sonist

And just curious, what exactly are you arguing for? Some weird form of a "free market," where seller/provider terms make law, without any consumer protection, and I suppose, without anti-trust scheme?

Not at all. I'm simply arguing that purchase of an Xbox does not confer the right to access the Xbox live service. It especially does not confer the right to do so without any obligation to abide by the T&C's. An Xbox is a physical product. With it comes the ability but not the right to access the Xbox live service. The Xbox live service is an added benefit that comes with its own fee and T&C's.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

No, it's been my argument all along. As I said, you simply don't understand UK civil contract law.

And right, you're trolling. My bad for everyone else for the feeding.

No, your argument started by stating that MS had advertised that buying and Xbox conferred the right to access Xbox live upon the purchaser. You then later claimed that the T&C's would be invalid because the advertising created the expectation that accessing Xbox live was a right of any Xbox purchaser. Now you are claiming that if the T&C's were ruled invalid in court then this right would then be conferred.

Even after all those changes you are still incorrect.

Any T&C's that were found to be invalid would be removed. All the rest would remain. No right to access the Xbox live service, particularly the right to do so without the obligation to abide by the remaining T&C's, would automatically be conferred upon all purchasers of an Xbox.

Finally, though I have argued my point strongly, I have done so without being rude, without being sarcastic, without any personal insults or any of the other hallmarks of a troll. I find it interesting that you accuse me of trolling simply because I disagree with you. That says alot about you.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Ervserver]

and here I thought half of the Xbox 360s were failing

[DawnFalcon]

~35%. (Which is still a bad joke, yes)

PKFFW - Read up on UK civil contract law. Really. Your persistant refusal to do so... (the basics, like "automatically unfair contract terms")

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

~35%. (Which is still a bad joke, yes)

PKFFW - Read up on UK civil contract law. Really. Your persistant refusal to do so... (the basics, like "automatically unfair contract terms")

Will that be the part that goes over if a T&C is unfair then it's removal automatically bestows rights and privileges not pertaining to the T&C at all upon everyone?

Cheers,
PKFFW