Horribly late to this, but IF Microsoft decided to sell off the Xbox division (which is far from a sure or even likely thing at this point), I'd agree Samsung would be the most likely buyer. They're making bargeloads of money lately off their smartphones and tablets -- hell, Samsung is damn near synonymous with Android right now, no other maker of Android stuff comes close to Samsung's dominance -- plus they're semi-desperate to find The Next Big Thing. This is why they keep obsessing over that damn smartwatch. Picking up a video gaming division would be a great way to diversify and protect themselves if/when someone else takes the Android thunder. (In fact it could be Google themselves, they've been extra-aggressive with their own devices lately.)
Switch: 3947-4890-9293
0
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
Horribly late to this, but IF Microsoft decided to sell off the Xbox division (which is far from a sure or even likely thing at this point), I'd agree Samsung would be the most likely buyer. They're making bargeloads of money lately off their smartphones and tablets -- hell, Samsung is damn near synonymous with Android right now, no other maker of Android stuff comes close to Samsung's dominance -- plus they're semi-desperate to find The Next Big Thing. This is why they keep obsessing over that damn smartwatch. Picking up a video gaming division would be a great way to diversify and protect themselves if/when someone else takes the Android thunder. (In fact it could be Google themselves, they've been extra-aggressive with their own devices lately.)
That's a pretty decent call. They're already neck-deep in consumer devices, so it would probably be easy for them to incorporate whatever comes with the purchase.
Not to mention that they could probably make for some pretty compelling inter-device compatibility between Xbox and Samsung stuff that way, much like the Vita will be able to remotely play PS4 stuff.
Horribly late to this, but IF Microsoft decided to sell off the Xbox division (which is far from a sure or even likely thing at this point), I'd agree Samsung would be the most likely buyer. They're making bargeloads of money lately off their smartphones and tablets -- hell, Samsung is damn near synonymous with Android right now, no other maker of Android stuff comes close to Samsung's dominance -- plus they're semi-desperate to find The Next Big Thing. This is why they keep obsessing over that damn smartwatch. Picking up a video gaming division would be a great way to diversify and protect themselves if/when someone else takes the Android thunder. (In fact it could be Google themselves, they've been extra-aggressive with their own devices lately.)
Yeah, this is merely just fun armchair CEOing at this point, but I'd have to agree. Unless Microsoft did something really absurd with the sale, like gut the division's assets or hire back all the executives or whatever, the Xbox division would basically become a console business in a box for whoever decided to pick it up. Hardware, R&D, manufacturing contracts, industry folks with relationships with third party publishers, they'd get it all. That has to be attractive to Apple, Samsung, possibly Google, or others still, to say nothing of existing game companies with the bankroll to possibly manage a purchase like that, such as EA and Activision Blizzard.
Edit: haha, or Nintendo. That'd be a ridiculous future.
bss on
3DS: 2466-2307-8384 PSN: bssteph Steam:bsstephanTwitch:bsstephan Tabletop:13th Age (mm-mmm), D&D 4e Occasional words about games:my site
The guy's paid his money and received his product. he should be able to do with it as he pleases. He's not constrained by the same agreements the gaming press are. He hasn't signed an NDA, or a contract. A 'street date' is of no relevance to him as that's between supplier and retailer. Are you saying he's supposed to just sit and stare at it for another two weeks?
I find it wrong for any company to reach across the internet and disable my legitimately paid for device that I wasn't doing anything illegal with or breaking the terms of service for. It's not so much that the company can do it that I have a problem with, rather they've demonstrated that they will do it for a completely bullshit reason.
He got a product before the release date. MS disabled it because it's not supposed to be released yet. I'm sure on release day he will get it back.
Sometimes a glitch plays in your favour. Here is didn't, even though he thought it would at first.
Except he purchased a working product, and the manufacturer abritrarily said "no, you can't play this yet". There is no legal grounds for them to just disable his system; he's done nothing wrong. I could 100% understand them denying access to their servers until release day, but disabling the system? It's basically a perfect example of why everything about Microsoft's entire approach to the Xbone has been horribly wrong.
"Oh no, I can't play my X1 before the street-date" is not even a small deal. It's no deal. Who the fuck cares?
The guy who paid over 500 bucks to get the thing? Everybody who might be considering do that same? When you buy shit, you expect it to work.
Unless we're just dismissing the notion of consumer rights completely.
This whole thing sets a horrible precedent for Microsoft, because it shows they have no issue with swiftly and arbitrarily breaking your shit if they don't like what you're doing.
The guy's paid his money and received his product. he should be able to do with it as he pleases. He's not constrained by the same agreements the gaming press are. He hasn't signed an NDA, or a contract. A 'street date' is of no relevance to him as that's between supplier and retailer.
Except apparently it is of relevance to him. Cause the manufacturer can enforce their streetdate.
I'm not seeing the problem here. There's nothing wrong going on, the store error is simply not in his favour after all.
Are you saying he's supposed to just sit and stare at it for another two weeks?
Apparently that's exactly what he'll have to do. Which is identical to what he'd have to do if it weren't for the mixup at Target. This is literally the situation he had planned for when he bought the product, so why is it suddenly wrong? This is what he expected to happen when he hit the order button and lo, it has come to pass.
He got a product before the release date. MS disabled it because it's not supposed to be released yet. I'm sure on release day he will get it back.
Sometimes a glitch plays in your favour. Here is didn't, even though he thought it would at first.
Except he purchased a working product, and the manufacturer abritrarily said "no, you can't play this yet". There is no legal grounds for them to just disable his system; he's done nothing wrong. I could 100% understand them denying access to their servers until release day, but disabling the system? It's basically a perfect example of why everything about Microsoft's entire approach to the Xbone has been horribly wrong.
"Oh no, I can't play my X1 before the street-date" is not even a small deal. It's no deal. Who the fuck cares?
The guy who paid over 500 bucks to get the thing? Everybody who might be considering do that same? When you buy shit, you expect it to work.
Unless we're just dismissing the notion of consumer rights completely.
This whole thing sets a horrible precedent for Microsoft, because it shows they have no issue with swiftly and arbitrarily breaking your shit if they don't like what you're doing.
The guy who paid over 500 bucks to get the thing expected to be able to play it no earlier then the 22nd.
Until he isn't getting what he paid for, nothing that happened is a problem.
Also, MS almost certainly has legal grounds (though possibly untested ones) for this kind of shit in the TOS or some equivalent agreement.
The guy's paid his money and received his product. he should be able to do with it as he pleases. He's not constrained by the same agreements the gaming press are. He hasn't signed an NDA, or a contract. A 'street date' is of no relevance to him as that's between supplier and retailer.
Except apparently it is of relevance to him. Cause the manufacturer can enforce their streetdate.
I'm not seeing the problem here. There's nothing wrong going on, the store error is simply not in his favour after all.
Are you saying he's supposed to just sit and stare at it for another two weeks?
Apparently that's exactly what he'll have to do. Which is identical to what he'd have to do if it weren't for the mixup at Target. This is literally the situation he had planned for when he bought the product, so why is it suddenly wrong? This is what he expected to happen when he hit the order button and lo, it has come to pass.
There's a difference between ordering something and having to wait until it's delivered and receiving something and not using it because 'reasons'. Don't be a goose. the onus isn't on him to not use something he's bought with his own money and received, the onus is on Target not to send out stuff before they're supposed to.
All these posts jumping to the defence of MS and telling the guy to suck it up smacks of sour grapes because he's received his early; "Well I haven't got mine, why should he play his boo hoo"
The guy's paid his money and received his product. he should be able to do with it as he pleases. He's not constrained by the same agreements the gaming press are. He hasn't signed an NDA, or a contract. A 'street date' is of no relevance to him as that's between supplier and retailer.
Except apparently it is of relevance to him. Cause the manufacturer can enforce their streetdate.
I'm not seeing the problem here. There's nothing wrong going on, the store error is simply not in his favour after all.
Are you saying he's supposed to just sit and stare at it for another two weeks?
Apparently that's exactly what he'll have to do. Which is identical to what he'd have to do if it weren't for the mixup at Target. This is literally the situation he had planned for when he bought the product, so why is it suddenly wrong? This is what he expected to happen when he hit the order button and lo, it has come to pass.
There's a difference between ordering something and having to wait until it's delivered and receiving something and not using it because 'reasons'. Don't be a goose. the onus isn't on him to not use something he's bought with his own money and received, the onus is on Target not to send out stuff before they're supposed to.
All these posts jumping to the defence of MS and telling the guy to suck it up smacks of sour grapes because he's received his early; "Well I haven't got mine, why should he play his boo hoo"
Sour grapes? Why would you even think that? No one is mad at the guy, they are just indifferent to him not getting to accidentally play early. You people are literally upset that he doesn't get to benefit from Target's fuckup. I don't see why anyone should care.
I don't think nor have ever said the guy did anything wrong. It's not his or MS's fault that Target fucked up. There's no onus on him for anything.
But none of that is relevant to the current situation since no one is saying he did anything wrong. All they are saying is they don't see anything wrong with him not getting any chance to play early. All that's happened is he hasn't been allowed to benefit from the fuckup.
If a couch fell off a shipping truck in front of you and later the police came by and said "Sorry man, you don't get to keep the free thing that accidentally fell into your lap", you haven't been robbed. You just haven't gotten to benefit from random good luck/screw-ups.
Again, if come the 22nd his console is still bricked, then it's certainly wrong. He paid for the product and it arrived early through no fault of his own. Till then, there's nothing here to get worked up about.
shryke on
+1
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
He got a product before the release date. MS disabled it because it's not supposed to be released yet. I'm sure on release day he will get it back.
Sometimes a glitch plays in your favour. Here is didn't, even though he thought it would at first.
Except he purchased a working product, and the manufacturer abritrarily said "no, you can't play this yet". There is no legal grounds for them to just disable his system; he's done nothing wrong. I could 100% understand them denying access to their servers until release day, but disabling the system? It's basically a perfect example of why everything about Microsoft's entire approach to the Xbone has been horribly wrong.
"Oh no, I can't play my X1 before the street-date" is not even a small deal. It's no deal. Who the fuck cares?
The guy who paid over 500 bucks to get the thing? Everybody who might be considering do that same? When you buy shit, you expect it to work.
Unless we're just dismissing the notion of consumer rights completely.
This whole thing sets a horrible precedent for Microsoft, because it shows they have no issue with swiftly and arbitrarily breaking your shit if they don't like what you're doing.
The guy who paid over 500 bucks to get the thing expected to be able to play it no earlier then the 22nd.
Unless that's written on the receipt that it would be unplayable before the release date, then no, it's playable whenever he gets it.
I really don't fathom bending over backwards to defend what a manufacturer does when they flagrantly treat a customer like shit, especially for the sake of something like being able to make a launch go according to plan.
Regardless, this is some really shitty PR to garner right at release time. The last thing Microsoft needs is for people to notice how easily they could fuck them over.
If a coach fell off a shipping truck in front of you and later the police came by and said "Sorry man, you don't get to keep the free thing that accidentally fell into your lap", you haven't been robbed. You just haven't gotten to benefit from random good luck/screw-ups.
Man, if only the dude had actually paid for the product. OH WAIT. He did. He owns it. He has a receipt for it. He can say what he wants about it.
Microsoft can chase after whoever screwed up at Target all they want, but this guy? Screwed over simply because he wasn't in on the big marketing plan from Microsoft.
He got a product before the release date. MS disabled it because it's not supposed to be released yet. I'm sure on release day he will get it back.
Sometimes a glitch plays in your favour. Here is didn't, even though he thought it would at first.
Except he purchased a working product, and the manufacturer abritrarily said "no, you can't play this yet". There is no legal grounds for them to just disable his system; he's done nothing wrong. I could 100% understand them denying access to their servers until release day, but disabling the system? It's basically a perfect example of why everything about Microsoft's entire approach to the Xbone has been horribly wrong.
"Oh no, I can't play my X1 before the street-date" is not even a small deal. It's no deal. Who the fuck cares?
The guy who paid over 500 bucks to get the thing? Everybody who might be considering do that same? When you buy shit, you expect it to work.
Unless we're just dismissing the notion of consumer rights completely.
This whole thing sets a horrible precedent for Microsoft, because it shows they have no issue with swiftly and arbitrarily breaking your shit if they don't like what you're doing.
The guy who paid over 500 bucks to get the thing expected to be able to play it no earlier then the 22nd.
Until he isn't getting what he paid for, nothing that happened is a problem.
Also, MS almost certainly has legal grounds (though possibly untested ones) for this kind of shit in the TOS or some equivalent agreement.
Perhaps MS are within their rights.
On the other hand, they aren't really selling us on an all digital, always online future, are they?
lowlylowlycook on
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
They've deactivated it because the current version of the OS gives access to debug/dev tools that should not be available to the general public.
This is really not that hard to grasp. The OS is not in a consumer-ready format. There's developer stuff on there that this guy doesn't get to play with.
He got a product before the release date. MS disabled it because it's not supposed to be released yet. I'm sure on release day he will get it back.
Sometimes a glitch plays in your favour. Here is didn't, even though he thought it would at first.
Except he purchased a working product, and the manufacturer abritrarily said "no, you can't play this yet". There is no legal grounds for them to just disable his system; he's done nothing wrong. I could 100% understand them denying access to their servers until release day, but disabling the system? It's basically a perfect example of why everything about Microsoft's entire approach to the Xbone has been horribly wrong.
"Oh no, I can't play my X1 before the street-date" is not even a small deal. It's no deal. Who the fuck cares?
The guy who paid over 500 bucks to get the thing? Everybody who might be considering do that same? When you buy shit, you expect it to work.
Unless we're just dismissing the notion of consumer rights completely.
This whole thing sets a horrible precedent for Microsoft, because it shows they have no issue with swiftly and arbitrarily breaking your shit if they don't like what you're doing.
The guy who paid over 500 bucks to get the thing expected to be able to play it no earlier then the 22nd.
Unless that's written on the receipt that it would be unplayable before the release date, then no, it's playable whenever he gets it.
I really don't fathom bending over backwards to defend what a manufacturer does when they flagrantly treat a customer like shit, especially for the sake of something like being able to make a launch go according to plan.
They aren't treating him like shit though. That's your problem.
You believe it's wrong that he isn't able to take advantage of Target's screwup. I don't care if he can or not, so I'm not at all concerned that he can't. As long as his console works on the 22nd, nothing wrong happened.
No one is bending over backwards here, they are just shrugging their shoulders and going "Oh well, sometimes the fuckup just leaves you in the same position as everyone else who bought an X1".
Regardless, this is some really shitty PR to garner right at release time. The last thing Microsoft needs is for people to notice how easily they could fuck them over.
It certainly seems to be a PR issue for many. People are silly I guess.
MS should send him a gift-basket on the 22nd with a free game or something.
He got a product before the release date. MS disabled it because it's not supposed to be released yet. I'm sure on release day he will get it back.
Sometimes a glitch plays in your favour. Here is didn't, even though he thought it would at first.
Except he purchased a working product, and the manufacturer abritrarily said "no, you can't play this yet". There is no legal grounds for them to just disable his system; he's done nothing wrong. I could 100% understand them denying access to their servers until release day, but disabling the system? It's basically a perfect example of why everything about Microsoft's entire approach to the Xbone has been horribly wrong.
"Oh no, I can't play my X1 before the street-date" is not even a small deal. It's no deal. Who the fuck cares?
The guy who paid over 500 bucks to get the thing? Everybody who might be considering do that same? When you buy shit, you expect it to work.
Unless we're just dismissing the notion of consumer rights completely.
This whole thing sets a horrible precedent for Microsoft, because it shows they have no issue with swiftly and arbitrarily breaking your shit if they don't like what you're doing.
The guy who paid over 500 bucks to get the thing expected to be able to play it no earlier then the 22nd.
Until he isn't getting what he paid for, nothing that happened is a problem.
Also, MS almost certainly has legal grounds (though possibly untested ones) for this kind of shit in the TOS or some equivalent agreement.
Perhaps MS are within their rights.
On the other hand, they aren't really selling us on an all digital, always online future, are they?
I guess that depends on whether you've been to the all digital future yet or not. Not being able to use something before launch date is so normal for anything that involves online stuff, this doesn't even register as an issue to me.
Frankly, I'm surprised he could even connect to MS's servers in the first place.
ok if this had been some other product that got released early would people still have a problem with the customer making use of it?
if it was a DVD/Blu-Ray and it landed a week or two early would you expect people to not watch it?
how about if it had been the last Harry Potter* book? would you expect people not to read it because they weren't supposed to receive it until a later date?
why is it that any different here? the consoles ere sent out. sure it was a mistake, but why should those that benefited from that mistake have to pretend that they haven't?
He got a product before the release date. MS disabled it because it's not supposed to be released yet. I'm sure on release day he will get it back.
Sometimes a glitch plays in your favour. Here is didn't, even though he thought it would at first.
Except he purchased a working product, and the manufacturer abritrarily said "no, you can't play this yet". There is no legal grounds for them to just disable his system; he's done nothing wrong. I could 100% understand them denying access to their servers until release day, but disabling the system? It's basically a perfect example of why everything about Microsoft's entire approach to the Xbone has been horribly wrong.
"Oh no, I can't play my X1 before the street-date" is not even a small deal. It's no deal. Who the fuck cares?
The guy who paid over 500 bucks to get the thing? Everybody who might be considering do that same? When you buy shit, you expect it to work.
Unless we're just dismissing the notion of consumer rights completely.
This whole thing sets a horrible precedent for Microsoft, because it shows they have no issue with swiftly and arbitrarily breaking your shit if they don't like what you're doing.
The guy who paid over 500 bucks to get the thing expected to be able to play it no earlier then the 22nd.
Unless that's written on the receipt that it would be unplayable before the release date, then no, it's playable whenever he gets it.
I really don't fathom bending over backwards to defend what a manufacturer does when they flagrantly treat a customer like shit, especially for the sake of something like being able to make a launch go according to plan.
Regardless, this is some really shitty PR to garner right at release time. The last thing Microsoft needs is for people to notice how easily they could fuck them over.
If a coach fell off a shipping truck in front of you and later the police came by and said "Sorry man, you don't get to keep the free thing that accidentally fell into your lap", you haven't been robbed. You just haven't gotten to benefit from random good luck/screw-ups.
Man, if only the dude had actually paid for the product. OH WAIT. He did. He owns it. He has a receipt for it. He can say what he wants about it.
Microsoft can chase after whoever screwed up at Target all they want, but this guy? Screwed over simply because he wasn't in on the big marketing plan from Microsoft.
Actually, his Xbox One still works. His console is banned from Xbox Live, but he can still play single player games all he wants.
So in other words they banned him from a service that wasn't set to go live yet. They didn't brick his console.
No I don't.
+1
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
So in other words they banned him from a service that wasn't set to go live yet. They didn't brick his console.
If this is the case, then it's really the only relevant thing to be said. If it's just denying him access to the Live servers, then yeah, I don't see any problem here.
ok if this had been some other product that got released early would people still have a problem with the customer making use of it?
if it was a DVD/Blu-Ray and it landed a week or two early would you expect people to not watch it?
how about if it had been the last Harry Potter* book? would you expect people not to read it because they weren't supposed to receive it until a later date?
why is it that any different here? the consoles ere sent out. sure it was a mistake, but why should those that benefited from that mistake have to pretend that they haven't?
I don't think anyone would care if he'd been able to play early.
Some of us just don't care if he can't play early. And some think it's an outrage for some reason.
The argument is entirely about whether the customer has some sort of RIGHT to use the product early if he or she is the beneficiary of a screwup.
They've deactivated it because the current version of the OS gives access to debug/dev tools that should not be available to the general public.
This is really not that hard to grasp. The OS is not in a consumer-ready format. There's developer stuff on there that this guy doesn't get to play with.
Hold on a second. So Microsoft bricked his system because it wasn't ready yet? Um, what about the zillions of consoles out there sitting in their boxes? Are all of them also not ready to use? Because they're all going to be in the same state, and the retailers aren't going to go through and run a patch disk on every system.
Because if this one dude has one system that "wasn't ready", then all the systems aren't ready, and a lot of them aren't going to be going online to recieve patches to make them ready.
I just have to plain call bullshit on that claim, on the simple basis that it wouldn't do Microsoft any good to brick one system when all the systems are messed up.
He's obviously talking about the box's interaction with the online service. Don't be a goose.
So in other words they banned him from a service that wasn't set to go live yet. They didn't brick his console.
If this is the case, then it's really the only relevant thing to be said. If it's just denying him access to the Live servers, then yeah, I don't see any problem here.
Going through his tweets on the matter, he can still use live on the 360, but all online functionality of the One is banned. He can still play singleplayer games according to this:
"#1 Source 4 XBOX ONE @Moonlightswami 11h @bobwestDD I can do single player, just can't go online."
So besides the muckery with youtube, Microsoft hasn't done anything wrong in my eyes.
I kept wondering last night if this was another case of people assuming the worst, and it seems like it was. As long as his console isn't banned after the release date Microsoft isn't doing anything wrong here. They own their servers, and they get to decide when they're suppose to go live.
They've deactivated it because the current version of the OS gives access to debug/dev tools that should not be available to the general public.
This is really not that hard to grasp. The OS is not in a consumer-ready format. There's developer stuff on there that this guy doesn't get to play with.
Hold on a second. So Microsoft bricked his system because it wasn't ready yet? Um, what about the zillions of consoles out there sitting in their boxes? Are all of them also not ready to use? Because they're all going to be in the same state, and the retailers aren't going to go through and run a patch disk on every system.
Because if this one dude has one system that "wasn't ready", then all the systems aren't ready, and a lot of them aren't going to be going online to recieve patches to make them ready.
I just have to plain call bullshit on that claim, on the simple basis that it wouldn't do Microsoft any good to brick one system when all the systems are messed up.
they haven't bricked his console. the console still works. he has been playing his retail copy of COD on the Xbox One. the console can't, however, connect to Live. just the console though, his account is still active.
what Sal is saying is that the update he installed is not the final day one patch but a beta system patch that still included dev tools. it is not the final retail version of the OS. this is why they've chosen to restrict his access, so that he doesn't mess with functions/features that are due to be removed and aren't for the general public to mess around with.
also MS have been very open and upfront about the fact that the day one patch is required before the Xbone can do pretty much anything, so yes, all those units sitting in warehouses will need to be patched before they can be used/are fully functional.
So in other words they banned him from a service that wasn't set to go live yet. They didn't brick his console.
If this is the case, then it's really the only relevant thing to be said. If it's just denying him access to the Live servers, then yeah, I don't see any problem here.
Going through his tweets on the matter, he can still use live on the 360, but all online functionality of the One is banned. He can still play singleplayer games according to this:
"#1 Source 4 XBOX ONE @Moonlightswami 11h @bobwestDD I can do single player, just can't go online."
So besides the muckery with youtube, Microsoft hasn't done anything wrong in my eyes.
I kept wondering last night if this was another case of people assuming the worst, and it seems like it was. As long as his console isn't banned after the release date Microsoft isn't doing anything wrong here. They own their servers, and they get to decide when they're suppose to go live.
Agreed. The Youtube block is still shitty (and possibly illegal), but keeping the console from just going online is thoroughly normal and expected.
also MS have been very open and upfront about the fact that the day one patch is required before the Xbone can do pretty much anything, so yes, all those units sitting in warehouses will need to be patched before they can be used/are fully functional.
Yeah, I get it now; I was misunderstanding the situation. If a Day One patch is necessary in order to go online and use Live stuff, yeah, that makes total sense; it wasn't making sense to me in the context of the console being disabled, which was incorrect.
yeah, people seem to be calming down on the Live 'ban', but i think taking down his Youtube video and his temp ban from Twitter are another matter and that's something MS should have given more thought to before acting. i also don't think they should be restricting his Live access but at this point i don't think its a major issue that's worth much(if any) more discussion.
+3
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
Well, the Live access is something I can completely understand. This close to the mark, the system could be dealing with all sorts of last-minute troubleshooting and revisions, so him accessing the system actually could have an adverse affect on his system or be a problem since all the consumer-end stuff might not be on there yet.
The Youtube and Twitter stuff is still shitty and heavy-handed, but not really unprecedented. I mean, it's still going to be something people notice and make Microsoft look bad, but they wouldn't be the first company to do it.
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
We're not talking about some goddamn walkman you bought that was shut down by some kill switch.
We're in a strange new era where a device's connectivity demand changes the rules of what it means to have a piece of hardware. Going into this gen we all knew that MS wanted you to be tied to their service in order to use the product to begin with. You're not just buying a piece of hardware to use - you're buying access to a service.
Service which is not meant to be accessible yet.
Listen, I agree it's strange and fucked up. But that's what this is. MS made their bed, they'll have to lay in it. But my opinion stands as before - the error was on Target's part for giving this guy his pre-purchase way ahead of schedule. He'll be able to use it at midnight just as anyone else still. He just can't use it like two weeks in advance or whatever. This isn't a consumer rights thing, this is a misunderstanding of what it means to live in an era where service access is a thing.
So I posted this in XBONE thread, but I think it may be more appropriate here.
With the early xbox releases, and the guy who got his twitter taken down etc.. I don't want to talk about that, just the things that happened and who should be protected by the law. As far as I know, this is the first time something has happened like this, at least on a high profile device.
Has anything like this ever happened before? A device has a street
date. Will not work without something from the company being
downloaded. You get it early, cannot get patch or whatever it is you
need, so it's a paper weight until that day. I don't think there has.
This could get very interesting if any legal parties got involved. I
mean, eventually, some sort of precedent will have to be set and there
will be a case vs consumer right who obtain something legally, vs
corporate interest for street dates, press releases, etc...
We're not talking about some goddamn walkman you bought that was shut down by some kill switch.
We're in a strange new era where a device's connectivity demand changes the rules of what it means to have a piece of hardware. Going into this gen we all knew that MS wanted you to be tied to their service in order to use the product to begin with. You're not just buying a piece of hardware to use - you're buying access to a service.
Service which is not meant to be accessible yet.
Listen, I agree it's strange and fucked up. But that's what this is. MS made their bed, they'll have to lay in it. But my opinion stands as before - the error was on Target's part for giving this guy his pre-purchase way ahead of schedule. He'll be able to use it at midnight just as anyone else still. He just can't use it like two weeks in advance or whatever. This isn't a consumer rights thing, this is a misunderstanding of what it means to live in an era where service access is a thing.
No, it's good, we weren't even arguing about the same thing. The dude can use his console, but not Live. That part is totally fine and on the level.
+2
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
We're not talking about some goddamn walkman you bought that was shut down by some kill switch.
We're in a strange new era where a device's connectivity demand changes the rules of what it means to have a piece of hardware. Going into this gen we all knew that MS wanted you to be tied to their service in order to use the product to begin with. You're not just buying a piece of hardware to use - you're buying access to a service.
Service which is not meant to be accessible yet.
Listen, I agree it's strange and fucked up. But that's what this is. MS made their bed, they'll have to lay in it. But my opinion stands as before - the error was on Target's part for giving this guy his pre-purchase way ahead of schedule. He'll be able to use it at midnight just as anyone else still. He just can't use it like two weeks in advance or whatever. This isn't a consumer rights thing, this is a misunderstanding of what it means to live in an era where service access is a thing.
No, it's good, we weren't even arguing about the same thing. The dude can use his console, but not Live. That part is totally fine and on the level.
The subtlety here floors me.
I seriously can't believe MS' solution is "a patch on day one!" Oh god fuck off MS.
We're not talking about some goddamn walkman you bought that was shut down by some kill switch.
We're in a strange new era where a device's connectivity demand changes the rules of what it means to have a piece of hardware. Going into this gen we all knew that MS wanted you to be tied to their service in order to use the product to begin with. You're not just buying a piece of hardware to use - you're buying access to a service.
Service which is not meant to be accessible yet.
Listen, I agree it's strange and fucked up. But that's what this is. MS made their bed, they'll have to lay in it. But my opinion stands as before - the error was on Target's part for giving this guy his pre-purchase way ahead of schedule. He'll be able to use it at midnight just as anyone else still. He just can't use it like two weeks in advance or whatever. This isn't a consumer rights thing, this is a misunderstanding of what it means to live in an era where service access is a thing.
No, it's good, we weren't even arguing about the same thing. The dude can use his console, but not Live. That part is totally fine and on the level.
The subtlety here floors me.
I seriously can't believe MS' solution is "a patch on day one!" Oh god fuck off MS.
So I posted this in XBONE thread, but I think it may be more appropriate here.<br />
<br />
With the early xbox releases, and the guy who got his twitter taken down etc.. I don't want to talk about that, just the things that happened and who should be protected by the law. As far as I know, this is the first time something has happened like this, at least on a high profile device.<br />
<br />
<br />
Has anything like this ever happened before? A device has a street <br />
date. Will not work without something from the company being <br />
downloaded. You get it early, cannot get patch or whatever it is you <br />
need, so it's a paper weight until that day. I don't think there has. <br />
This could get very interesting if any legal parties got involved. I <br />
mean, eventually, some sort of precedent will have to be set and there <br />
will be a case vs consumer right who obtain something legally, vs <br />
corporate interest for street dates, press releases, etc...
His twitter is still up.
What is this I don't even.
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited November 2013
Having it preloaded rather than be a download.
This is where MS' liability for this issue steps in. But I think we're under embargo for discussing that too much in this thread. The online thing.
Edit - Whoa what the hell was with that HTML conversion?
Posts
Haha, that would seriously be one helluva of an amazing bit of PR.
If they really wanted to get nasty, they could make him a Youtube account and tell him to just go nuts with talking about the system.
That's a pretty decent call. They're already neck-deep in consumer devices, so it would probably be easy for them to incorporate whatever comes with the purchase.
Not to mention that they could probably make for some pretty compelling inter-device compatibility between Xbox and Samsung stuff that way, much like the Vita will be able to remotely play PS4 stuff.
Yeah, this is merely just fun armchair CEOing at this point, but I'd have to agree. Unless Microsoft did something really absurd with the sale, like gut the division's assets or hire back all the executives or whatever, the Xbox division would basically become a console business in a box for whoever decided to pick it up. Hardware, R&D, manufacturing contracts, industry folks with relationships with third party publishers, they'd get it all. That has to be attractive to Apple, Samsung, possibly Google, or others still, to say nothing of existing game companies with the bankroll to possibly manage a purchase like that, such as EA and Activision Blizzard.
Edit: haha, or Nintendo. That'd be a ridiculous future.
Tabletop:13th Age (mm-mmm), D&D 4e
Occasional words about games: my site
He got a product before the release date. MS disabled it because it's not supposed to be released yet. I'm sure on release day he will get it back.
Sometimes a glitch plays in your favour. Here is didn't, even though he thought it would at first.
"Oh no, I can't play my X1 before the street-date" is not even a small deal. It's no deal. Who the fuck cares?
Except he purchased a working product, and the manufacturer abritrarily said "no, you can't play this yet". There is no legal grounds for them to just disable his system; he's done nothing wrong. I could 100% understand them denying access to their servers until release day, but disabling the system? It's basically a perfect example of why everything about Microsoft's entire approach to the Xbone has been horribly wrong.
The guy who paid over 500 bucks to get the thing? Everybody who might be considering do that same? When you buy shit, you expect it to work.
Unless we're just dismissing the notion of consumer rights completely.
This whole thing sets a horrible precedent for Microsoft, because it shows they have no issue with swiftly and arbitrarily breaking your shit if they don't like what you're doing.
Hahaha, that seriously is about as free and easy as good PR gets.
Except apparently it is of relevance to him. Cause the manufacturer can enforce their streetdate.
I'm not seeing the problem here. There's nothing wrong going on, the store error is simply not in his favour after all.
Apparently that's exactly what he'll have to do. Which is identical to what he'd have to do if it weren't for the mixup at Target. This is literally the situation he had planned for when he bought the product, so why is it suddenly wrong? This is what he expected to happen when he hit the order button and lo, it has come to pass.
What's your XBox friend code?
The guy who paid over 500 bucks to get the thing expected to be able to play it no earlier then the 22nd.
Until he isn't getting what he paid for, nothing that happened is a problem.
Also, MS almost certainly has legal grounds (though possibly untested ones) for this kind of shit in the TOS or some equivalent agreement.
There's a difference between ordering something and having to wait until it's delivered and receiving something and not using it because 'reasons'. Don't be a goose. the onus isn't on him to not use something he's bought with his own money and received, the onus is on Target not to send out stuff before they're supposed to.
All these posts jumping to the defence of MS and telling the guy to suck it up smacks of sour grapes because he's received his early; "Well I haven't got mine, why should he play his boo hoo"
Sour grapes? Why would you even think that? No one is mad at the guy, they are just indifferent to him not getting to accidentally play early. You people are literally upset that he doesn't get to benefit from Target's fuckup. I don't see why anyone should care.
I don't think nor have ever said the guy did anything wrong. It's not his or MS's fault that Target fucked up. There's no onus on him for anything.
But none of that is relevant to the current situation since no one is saying he did anything wrong. All they are saying is they don't see anything wrong with him not getting any chance to play early. All that's happened is he hasn't been allowed to benefit from the fuckup.
If a couch fell off a shipping truck in front of you and later the police came by and said "Sorry man, you don't get to keep the free thing that accidentally fell into your lap", you haven't been robbed. You just haven't gotten to benefit from random good luck/screw-ups.
Again, if come the 22nd his console is still bricked, then it's certainly wrong. He paid for the product and it arrived early through no fault of his own. Till then, there's nothing here to get worked up about.
Unless that's written on the receipt that it would be unplayable before the release date, then no, it's playable whenever he gets it.
I really don't fathom bending over backwards to defend what a manufacturer does when they flagrantly treat a customer like shit, especially for the sake of something like being able to make a launch go according to plan.
Regardless, this is some really shitty PR to garner right at release time. The last thing Microsoft needs is for people to notice how easily they could fuck them over.
Man, if only the dude had actually paid for the product. OH WAIT. He did. He owns it. He has a receipt for it. He can say what he wants about it.
Microsoft can chase after whoever screwed up at Target all they want, but this guy? Screwed over simply because he wasn't in on the big marketing plan from Microsoft.
Perhaps MS are within their rights.
On the other hand, they aren't really selling us on an all digital, always online future, are they?
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
This is really not that hard to grasp. The OS is not in a consumer-ready format. There's developer stuff on there that this guy doesn't get to play with.
They aren't treating him like shit though. That's your problem.
You believe it's wrong that he isn't able to take advantage of Target's screwup. I don't care if he can or not, so I'm not at all concerned that he can't. As long as his console works on the 22nd, nothing wrong happened.
No one is bending over backwards here, they are just shrugging their shoulders and going "Oh well, sometimes the fuckup just leaves you in the same position as everyone else who bought an X1".
It certainly seems to be a PR issue for many. People are silly I guess.
MS should send him a gift-basket on the 22nd with a free game or something.
I guess that depends on whether you've been to the all digital future yet or not. Not being able to use something before launch date is so normal for anything that involves online stuff, this doesn't even register as an issue to me.
Frankly, I'm surprised he could even connect to MS's servers in the first place.
if it was a DVD/Blu-Ray and it landed a week or two early would you expect people to not watch it?
how about if it had been the last Harry Potter* book? would you expect people not to read it because they weren't supposed to receive it until a later date?
why is it that any different here? the consoles ere sent out. sure it was a mistake, but why should those that benefited from that mistake have to pretend that they haven't?
Actually, his Xbox One still works. His console is banned from Xbox Live, but he can still play single player games all he wants.
So in other words they banned him from a service that wasn't set to go live yet. They didn't brick his console.
If this is the case, then it's really the only relevant thing to be said. If it's just denying him access to the Live servers, then yeah, I don't see any problem here.
I don't think anyone would care if he'd been able to play early.
Some of us just don't care if he can't play early. And some think it's an outrage for some reason.
The argument is entirely about whether the customer has some sort of RIGHT to use the product early if he or she is the beneficiary of a screwup.
He's obviously talking about the box's interaction with the online service. Don't be a goose.
Going through his tweets on the matter, he can still use live on the 360, but all online functionality of the One is banned. He can still play singleplayer games according to this:
"#1 Source 4 XBOX ONE @Moonlightswami 11h
@bobwestDD I can do single player, just can't go online."
So besides the muckery with youtube, Microsoft hasn't done anything wrong in my eyes.
I kept wondering last night if this was another case of people assuming the worst, and it seems like it was. As long as his console isn't banned after the release date Microsoft isn't doing anything wrong here. They own their servers, and they get to decide when they're suppose to go live.
they haven't bricked his console. the console still works. he has been playing his retail copy of COD on the Xbox One. the console can't, however, connect to Live. just the console though, his account is still active.
what Sal is saying is that the update he installed is not the final day one patch but a beta system patch that still included dev tools. it is not the final retail version of the OS. this is why they've chosen to restrict his access, so that he doesn't mess with functions/features that are due to be removed and aren't for the general public to mess around with.
also MS have been very open and upfront about the fact that the day one patch is required before the Xbone can do pretty much anything, so yes, all those units sitting in warehouses will need to be patched before they can be used/are fully functional.
BUT IT WAS WRONG!!!!!
Agreed. The Youtube block is still shitty (and possibly illegal), but keeping the console from just going online is thoroughly normal and expected.
Yeah, I get it now; I was misunderstanding the situation. If a Day One patch is necessary in order to go online and use Live stuff, yeah, that makes total sense; it wasn't making sense to me in the context of the console being disabled, which was incorrect.
The Youtube and Twitter stuff is still shitty and heavy-handed, but not really unprecedented. I mean, it's still going to be something people notice and make Microsoft look bad, but they wouldn't be the first company to do it.
We're in a strange new era where a device's connectivity demand changes the rules of what it means to have a piece of hardware. Going into this gen we all knew that MS wanted you to be tied to their service in order to use the product to begin with. You're not just buying a piece of hardware to use - you're buying access to a service.
Service which is not meant to be accessible yet.
Listen, I agree it's strange and fucked up. But that's what this is. MS made their bed, they'll have to lay in it. But my opinion stands as before - the error was on Target's part for giving this guy his pre-purchase way ahead of schedule. He'll be able to use it at midnight just as anyone else still. He just can't use it like two weeks in advance or whatever. This isn't a consumer rights thing, this is a misunderstanding of what it means to live in an era where service access is a thing.
With the early xbox releases, and the guy who got his twitter taken down etc.. I don't want to talk about that, just the things that happened and who should be protected by the law. As far as I know, this is the first time something has happened like this, at least on a high profile device.
Has anything like this ever happened before? A device has a street date. Will not work without something from the company being downloaded. You get it early, cannot get patch or whatever it is you need, so it's a paper weight until that day. I don't think there has. This could get very interesting if any legal parties got involved. I mean, eventually, some sort of precedent will have to be set and there will be a case vs consumer right who obtain something legally, vs corporate interest for street dates, press releases, etc...
I seriously can't believe MS' solution is "a patch on day one!" Oh god fuck off MS.
What other solution is there?
His twitter is still up.
This is where MS' liability for this issue steps in. But I think we're under embargo for discussing that too much in this thread. The online thing.
Edit - Whoa what the hell was with that HTML conversion?
Dude, simple: delay the system to package it with the updated OS. That way people could point and say "ANOTHER PR NIGHTMARE! Fail, MS, FAIL!"
You'd need to basically take all your boxes back, open them and reload the software and then repackage and reship it all.
That's not really anywhere close to practical. Or possible.