Print

[K1LLERHORNET]

QUOTE(Misterturtle @ Nov 19 2009, 05:05 AM)

Hahaha, i love it lol, i'm getting in on this

And yeah, I think a good part of the case might be a friend witbout live hooked up a hard drive to a banned console not knowing about hard drive corruption, signed in, then back in his xbox and then his profile is corrupt and he cannot recover it because no live.

Have a look at this: http://www.se7ensins.com/forums/xbox-360-tutorials/155990-uncorrupt-profile-banned-xbox-360-a.html

^ I have tried & tested it on my Forza 3 save that got corrupter on a banned console - i was getting a corrupt profile error - works perfectly now

[Martinchris23]

I agree - they should be targetting the corruption/blacklisting of profiles and gamesaves (which technically is classed as your personal data) and the revokation of HDD installation.

Installs to HDD were introduced for 3 main reasons:

1. To reduce the laser wear on ODDs (the laser life-span of a DVD-ROM is abysmal when it's being used constantly for 3-4 hours a day and totally impractical for us in a games console for this very reason).

2. To reduce the noise level during gameplay. One of the biggest gripes with the 360 (second only to failure rate) is the horrendous noise the earlier models made once discs got up to 'full spin'. Combine this with a badly balanced DVD-ROM (my launch console and PDZ was awfully loud when vertical) and you have yourself an extremely noisy piece of kit.

3. To reduce the chance of discs being scratched. There were at least half a dozen lawsuits within the EU and US for people claiming compensation for damaged discs where it was no fault of the customer.

None of these issues are attributed to lifting the lid on a games console and so could be argued that revoking the HDD install feature allows banned users to claim from MS.

As for 'HDD installs were an added feature', it's irrelevent. MS now ADVERTISE this as part of the specification. Therefore it's implied it's a standard. By removing the feature you're reducing the standard functionality of the console which was introduced to help increase the life-span of the console.

What I am most aggrieved with is MS can do all this to your console without any proof of wrongdoing. Denying access to a service is one thing, but I cannot find ANYTHING in the ToS which states they're allowed to modify your console to reduce standalone functionality. Imagine being banned on a forum and having your Windows User Account disabled as a result?

[bobbyblaze]

I know people with modded consoles had it coming etc. but on the other hand if MS want to rudely kick people off live then I think they should prorata their subscription funds back. Seems only fair. What they are doing is keeping money for a service they are not providing.

How much money do you think the xbox live service costs to run each year? $25 million? Guess what? They made that much profit free and clear by banning a million people.

Xbox live subscription for 12 months                          = $50
average amount of time left on sub at time of banning = 6 months
Number of xbox live users banned                              = 1 million

Profit for banning xbox live modded users = (6/12)x 50 x 1,000,000 =  $25million

These people paid good money for a service, a service that all other video game users get for free. MS wants them off the service? Fine, it's there service, they can do what they like with it but keeping the money for a service they have withdrawn and refuse to provide? Enough money to run the service for everyone else?

That's fucking iffy and these lawyers have a point. Never mind what it says in the TOS, MS should give back the money for the service they are no longer giving to their customers and stop using them as a pure profit mechanism to provide the service for others.

As for the hard drive corruption? Not only is that nasty but it is tantamount to the damage done by hackers and may be against UK law among others.

[gbest05]

Ok, lets get serious people M$ more than likely spends billions of dollars on a top notch legal team. There is no way of winning this again a monopoly corporation.

[bobbyblaze]

Oh yes there is. The reason MS might not lose often is that they will settle the most egregious cases as well as those that are cheaper and easier to make go away with a settlement. Not forgetting those ones which might stir up too much bad publicity too. Oh and they got creamed in the european courts several times precisely because of those monopolistic practices to the tune of several billion dollars.

[RichMR2]

A few questions;

1. Why should MS refund subscriptions which they have not cancelled? The console is banned as it is not as Microsoft manufactured it and therefore breaching the terms of live. Microsoft are within their rights to do this and it is deemed fair.

2. Do you really want people going through your game collection? Chances are you have some games which you shouldn't have. You really want further investigation in to you, at your own will, which could have you brought up on many charges of copyright infringement etc. and get you a nice big fine (or worse)? FYI the firmware used is a breach of Microsoft's copyright... care to take on Microsoft and have that as a counter claim?

3. Why shouldn't Microsoft disable a feature which was enabled through a dashboard update? The spec of the xbox 360 does not specify that hard drive installs are an option. While this may be a bit of a grey area in the whole "fairness" deal I can see a few ways out for Microsoft.

4. Is the cost of a court appearance and legal fees (if applicable) really worth it? A new console can be picked up very cheaply, law firms will charge you more than the value of a new console (if charged for service) or a day off work would cost you more (depending on your salary).

5. Should it be you or your parents doing this? I get the general impression that a lot of people complaining are still in school!! The contract with MS is broken when you signed it as you are a minor. Otherwise it is with your guardian.


Personally, I would stay away from this. Take the ban as a lesson learned.

[death69inc]

QUOTE(makavelif50 @ Nov 19 2009, 06:06 AM)

I do not agree with this crap at all. It's simple if you mod your 360 it will get banned plain and simple. I agree with what Microsoft has done. Everyone by now should know the risks of modding your xbox, and if you understand the risks then you should wine, cry, or whatever when Microsoft bans your console. If you really must mod an xbox keep it offline and buy one just for online play. I mean if you mod it your going to end up buying another one anyways.

once agian what do you do for people that where banned that where not modded???

QUOTE(RichMR2 @ Nov 19 2009, 11:20 AM)

A few questions;

1. Why should MS refund subscriptions which they have not cancelled? The console is banned as it is not as Microsoft manufactured it and therefore breaching the terms of live. Microsoft are within their rights to do this and it is deemed fair.

2. Do you really want people going through your game collection? Chances are you have some games which you shouldn't have. You really want further investigation in to you, at your own will, which could have you brought up on many charges of copyright infringement etc. and get you a nice big fine (or worse)? FYI the firmware used is a breach of Microsoft's copyright... care to take on Microsoft and have that as a counter claim?

3. Why shouldn't Microsoft disable a feature which was enabled through a dashboard update? The spec of the xbox 360 does not specify that hard drive installs are an option. While this may be a bit of a grey area in the whole "fairness" deal I can see a few ways out for Microsoft.

4. Is the cost of a court appearance and legal fees (if applicable) really worth it? A new console can be picked up very cheaply, law firms will charge you more than the value of a new console (if charged for service) or a day off work would cost you more (depending on your salary).

5. Should it be you or your parents doing this? I get the general impression that a lot of people complaining are still in school!! The contract with MS is broken when you signed it as you are a minor. Otherwise it is with your guardian.
Personally, I would stay away from this. Take the ban as a lesson learned.

[troywedi]

QUOTE(PRiME2008 @ Nov 19 2009, 07:36 PM)

The problem falls in with the fact that MS are going to have lots of Banned consoles circulating out there and people are going to be caught out when its not there fault they bought a second hand console and didnt realise it was banned because of someone elses actions. MS should have stuck to revoking peoples live accounts, sure they can sign up for another but again they must pay to do so. Leave the consoles out of the battle I say and focus on the live users breaking the rules not their consoles because those can be moved around, esp now that there is a million or more floating about.

I totally agree Prime. I got the ban hammer and have since sold on. Out of hundreds of thousands of units, however many get sold on, how many unknowing people that have never even heard a word of this 09 ban wave go straight to the shops and buy a pre-paid card after getting a 2nd hand unit. They then find console is banned, can you imagine the fight for a end user with basic knowledge trying to get a refund from a level 1 agent in Bangladesh.... Not going to happen. I just say the ban's could of been done with more end user focus, not cutting of a million consoles and leaving consumers to sit in their own filth so to speak.

[d-range]

The interesting bit of a class action lawsuit against XBL bannings would be that Microsoft might have to disclose their methods to determine when a console is 'modified'. I'm not an expert on US law but maybe someone who knows how the system works over there, but if I'm correct, any information disclosed in a class action suit is available publicly?

[RichMR2]

That is a very different legal case.

You will need to seek legal action for that which is totally different to this one. As for lost time, if found incorrect I am sure Microsoft will add on the missed live subscription time much like they do (or did) for repairs.

I would suggest that you contact a legal firm and take up this other matter. Microsoft will pay legal fees, court costs and for anything else you can claim cost you while this investigation/case was ongoing so what do you have to lose?

But how many console which were banned really did nothing wrong? They banned for more than just firmware.

[medievil]

QUOTE(sgr215 @ Nov 19 2009, 06:09 AM)

While I don't like frivolous lawsuits, I believe this class action lawsuit will only benefit the community as a whole. I also believe it's a legitimate lawsuit. The most important bit of information I gathered from this is "were not refunded a prorated sum for the time left on your subscription". Microsoft could have prevented this suit but they got a little too greedy and thus may end up paying for it in the end. I realize their TOS may have covered them in situations like this but a lot of people fail to realize that while a TOS may hold some sort of legal protection it certainly isn't bulletproof. Such a clause in their TOS could be deemed unfair and I'm assuming that's the primary complaint here. I'd urge anyone banned who didn't receive a refund for the remainder of their subscription term to forward their information but that's just me. Realistically, even if this case is won you'll only see a few dollars but it'll most likely improve Xbox Live in the process.  

Microsoft is under no obligation to refund you for the remainder of your live sub.. if you are stupid enough to take a modded 360 online with live, then you haven't read the live user agreement that you agreed to that clearly states they have the right to ban you at ANY time. If you played one pirated game, you've already used up your live gold sub cost (as in what the game would cost)

I simply think the lawsuit is ridiculous and reeks of desperation by a bunch of pirates that are pissed off that they got got...lol

[Martinchris23]

QUOTE(RichMR2 @ Nov 19 2009, 10:20 AM)

3. Why shouldn't Microsoft disable a feature which was enabled through a dashboard update? The spec of the xbox 360 does not specify that hard drive installs are an option. While this may be a bit of a grey area in the whole "fairness" deal I can see a few ways out for Microsoft.

Because said feature was introduced to increase the lifespan of the console. MS never give you anything for free. HD installs wasn't a case of 'here you go - we've spent $$$$ developing a way for you to play games from the HDD and it won't cost you a penny'. It's more a case of 'we KNOW the DVD drive is prone to scratching discs, either by the console being accidentally knocked, or even just sat there doing its own thing. In order to stop you from suing us over this, we're giving you a fix in the flavour of HDD installs that only work with THAT console.'

Face it - if it was the first option you wouldn't need to have the content exclusive to one console (since you need the disc itself to authenticate it). Now I know why it was DRM locked.

Here's another thought - if MSs detection system is so good, why not allow people to return their modified console back to an unmodified state and re-test for XBL? Rather than have 100,000s of banned consoles out there, it would allow people who made the mistake (or were unaware they're console was modified) to rectify it.

[RichMR2]

QUOTE(d-range @ Nov 19 2009, 10:50 AM)

The interesting bit of a class action lawsuit against XBL bannings would be that Microsoft might have to disclose their methods to determine when a console is 'modified'. I'm not an expert on US law but maybe someone who knows how the system works over there, but if I'm correct, any information disclosed in a class action suit is available publicly?

I think it depends on the information and on the outcome of the case.

[medievil]

QUOTE(bobbyblaze @ Nov 19 2009, 11:01 AM)

I know people with modded consoles had it coming etc. but on the other hand if MS want to rudely kick people off live then I think they should prorata their subscription funds back. Seems only fair. What they are doing is keeping money for a service they are not providing.

How much money do you think the xbox live service costs to run each year? $25 million? Guess what? They made that much profit free and clear by banning a million people.

Xbox live subscription for 12 months                          = $50
average amount of time left on sub at time of banning = 6 months
Number of xbox live users banned                              = 1 million

Profit for banning xbox live modded users = (6/12)x 50 x 1,000,000 =  $25million

These people paid good money for a service, a service that all other video game users get for free. MS wants them off the service? Fine, it's there service, they can do what they like with it but keeping the money for a service they have withdrawn and refuse to provide? Enough money to run the service for everyone else?

That's fucking iffy and these lawyers have a point. Never mind what it says in the TOS, MS should give back the money for the service they are no longer giving to their customers and stop using them as a pure profit mechanism to provide the service for others.

As for the hard drive corruption? Not only is that nasty but it is tantamount to the damage done by hackers and may be against UK law among others.

As has been pointed out, you can still use your live sub, just not the banned console. so MS is completely covered, best option if you get banned, go online, log into live and suspend your sub till you get a new console...
 otherwise it is on YOU to manage your own live sub...

[NeO_CooL]

QUOTE(Puffer @ Nov 19 2009, 05:17 AM)

Lets not forget that the HDD installs are NOT part of the original functionality of the hardware, but an added benefit given by MS through a system update.  So, technically, no they didn't limit the hardware, they returned it to its original state.

yes it is. you buy a new xbox 360 and it cames with that functioinality.
and in some sort you buy it because of it. or you would buy a arcade version.
and on the sudent you don´t have anymore what you´ve paid for.

seems to be a good point on a law suit
i doub´t that in the agreement it previews that you could lose this function