Firm considers class action over Xbox Live bannings
by Alexander Sliwinski 
{ Nov 19th 2009 at 2:01PM } 
According to Joystiq legal columnist Mark Methenitis' analysis: "To me, this certainly sounds a lot like a cash grab directed at a company with deep pockets, but perhaps there are more facts than they are letting on." He explains that a user savvy enough to have a modded console would also know not to connect it to Live without "serious risk." Methenitis concludes, "If, in fact, Microsoft is inducing people to buy a service only to terminate them, then there's certainly a deceptive business practice concern. But this seems far more cut and dry than that."
[Thanks, C. Carl Carlston]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
Sebastián @ Nov 19th 2009 2:02PM
overeactioning??
Hooch is Craaazey @ Nov 19th 2009 2:09PM
Still, it would be different if it was the PSN, but people are paying 40 quid a year for XBL and modded console or not, they should be made aware of Microsoft's stance on them, which is something they have failed to do, resulting in people getting banned.
Yes they are mostly Idiots but there should be a warning system or a publicity drive against it.
Also, there was an issue with people who got MW2 early getting banned for logging on to XBL, despite many stores in the USA dishing out early copies to pre-orderers.
David @ Nov 19th 2009 2:14PM
did you just say that people who modded their xboxes (in order to play pirated games) didn't know that what they were doing was illegal!???
are you SERIOUS????
sadisticfreak432 @ Nov 19th 2009 2:14PM
There is a such thing as an End User License Agreement.
Take the time to read it, you'll learn that modding your console IS A BAN-ABLE OFFENSE. Microsoft probably banned the most users around these times because it is a lot easier to track. They have every right to ban users whenever they see fit. If somebody is pissed that they spent the money on Xbox Live only to get banned, then they shouldn't have pirated the games they played, because they would have spent that money anyway.
aristokrat @ Nov 19th 2009 2:16PM
Publicity drive? You think anyone who knows how to mod a console doesn't know how to read? There's a little thing called the EULA that contains a clause about modded consoles, and whether you read it or not, you agreed to it when you signed up with XBL.
The only publicity drive I want to see is one that tells people they are responsible for their own actions.
Hooch is Craaazey @ Nov 19th 2009 2:21PM
I think you're all massively missing the point of my post sorry, L2 see the other side of the argument.
I do agree, Modders and pirates are scum, but to be honest, most people don't read the EULA and i think Microsoft should make it their job to make sure the rules are more clear. If they did, this type of pointless lawsuit would be avoided.
biohazard @ Nov 19th 2009 2:23PM
@Hooch is Craaazey
All users of Xbox LIVE agree to the TOU. By accepting said TOU they ARE aware of Microsoft's stance on them [specifically modders]:
section 16 of Xbox LIVE Games for Windows LIVE Terms of Use
...
Microsoft reserves complete and sole discretion with respect to the operation of the Service. Microsoft may, among other things: (a) restrict or limit access to the Service; (b) retrieve information from the original Xbox, Xbox 360 console, personal computer, and any connected peripheral device used to log onto the Service as necessary to operate and protect the security of the Service, and to enforce this contract; and (c) upgrade, modify, withdraw, suspend, or discontinue any functionality or feature of the Service, any game or other content available or accessible through the Service, or any hardware or software associated with the Service or with an original Xbox or Xbox 360 console, or personal computer, from time to time without notice, which may involve the automatic download of related software directly to your original Xbox, Xbox 360 console, or personal computer, including software that prevents you from accessing the Service, playing pirated games, or using unauthorized hardware peripheral devices.
Tiptup300 @ Nov 19th 2009 2:24PM
When you get banned only your console is banned, your xbl subscription is intact.
Psychofemm @ Nov 19th 2009 2:25PM
a fella on my friend's list had a modded box and just the console was banned. His gamertag/subscription is perfectly fine. He just went out and took advantage of the walmart $199 deal with $100 giftcard and hopped back on live.
unless other people lost their gamertags as well as consoles... i don't understand why these folks would need a refund.
Hooch is Craaazey @ Nov 19th 2009 2:26PM
@Biohazard,
I agree with what you're saying, but we all know someone who doesn't give a flying turd about the rules and just press "agree", I just feel more could be done to stress the importance of them.
Massmass @ Nov 19th 2009 2:32PM
Funny thing is, Microsoft could easily counter-sue because people who join the suit are basically admitting in full that they pirated games. I'm sure Microsoft's error rate is less than 5% on bannings concerning unauthorized use.
FNG @ Nov 19th 2009 2:40PM
@ Tiptup300
I was going to post the exact same thing. The lawsuit has no merit. Their subscriptions are still valid. The console they modded and used on live... not so much.
Eric H @ Nov 19th 2009 2:41PM
I would love to see these people stand up in court and say the bootlegged games, who does this lawyer work for EA?
JWLynch @ Nov 19th 2009 2:43PM
@Hooch is Craaazey...
If someone doesn't read the EULA and just presses "Agree", why is that Microsoft's fault?
biohazard @ Nov 19th 2009 2:52PM
Hooch is Craaazey @ Nov 19th 2009 2:26PM
@Biohazard,
>>I agree with what you're saying, but we all know someone who doesn't give a >>flying turd about the rules and just press "agree", I just feel more could be done >>to stress the importance of them.
Like what? Sending a Microsoft representative to a persons house to make sure they read the TOU and only then allow them to hit accept? Or maybe using the long-ago-abandoned blink html tag?
I don't feel terribly compelled to make exceptions or have special treatment for the typical idiot who won’t take a minute to read and understand a legally binding agreement before they agree to it. I think you’re making too many excuses for people who aren’t willing to take responsibility for their actions, and judging by the responses you've been getting I don't seem to be the only one.
Wii60 @ Nov 19th 2009 2:52PM
Yup. Just as Xbox users are free to hack and mod their own systems, Microsoft is free to do what they will with their own service.
Cat and mouse games, that's all it is.
arrrgh @ Nov 19th 2009 2:59PM
THIS is what happens when a firm has NO IDEA what they are getting in to. They see cash and want a slice of the pie. Do they even realize the nature of their suit is invalid?
THE XBL ACCOUNTS ARE NOT BANNED. The illegally modified console is blacklisted. Silly lawyers, better read up
d889 @ Nov 19th 2009 3:18PM
dont worry this will never make it to real court. the lawyer is just getting this bar because he wants all these stupid kids to pay HIM to do the ... lawyering.
even IF this ever got to court the judge would just laugh in everyones face and dismiss.
tabicat @ Nov 19th 2009 3:39PM
Massmass: as far as I'm concerned, 5% is 6% too high. The error rate should be less than zero (i.e. some people who should be banned haven't been, but no one who has been banned shouldn't have been)
Help me! @ Nov 19th 2009 4:10PM
If they're banning subscriptions and you're out X months of X-Box live, that's one thing, but if they're only banning the modded consoles themselves, I don't think the modders have a leg to stand on
Personally I don't think there's anything morally wrong with modding the hardware and software you personally own, but XBL is a service Microsoft owns, and if they don't want to let me online because they're worried my games are pirated or I'm using hacks to cheat, that seems perfectly legitimate to me
LegendaryRedass @ Nov 19th 2009 4:50PM
Among the many other incorrect statements you made, you claim people who bought MW2 early and logged in were banned. Nobody who played a legitimate copy of the game was ever banned. Try checking your facts. Google works wonderfully for that. And all of your other comments reflect the very attitude that plagues society like a virus. Your over-entitled, and refuse to accept that people should take responsibility for wrong doing, and think ignorance is an excuse.
LegendaryRedass @ Nov 19th 2009 4:52PM
*That was aimed at hooch
rambodude72 @ Nov 19th 2009 5:12PM
What i woulda thought that the microsoft woulda wanted me to mod my console (head desk)
Hooch is Craaazey @ Nov 19th 2009 7:09PM
Can't believe i'm being torn apart for being forgiving, nice moral stance guys. :/
Chris @ Nov 19th 2009 8:38PM
This is going to be pointless, the people who got banned deserved it. I did come across a Blockbuster employee yesterday that said he got banned in that wave. He claimed he didnt have a modded xbox, but did get a custom repair instead of paying MS' $100 out of warranty fee. Sounds fishy to me.
I see what @hooch is saying, but i think people know youre not supposed to change the contents of your system and knew what they were doing was wrong ahead of time. If you pirate or use modified stuff you know you're close to trouble at all times. I personally dont want people with sketchy mods that could cause freezes and drop outs in the game. Also, if you are already a theif do you think you'll care about Xbox Live rules? (i.e. cursing, being obnoxious, trying to mod/hack the games) I highly doubt it, you didnt pay for the game so who cares if you get banned from it?
Mogster @ Nov 19th 2009 10:53PM
Hooch is Craaazey is right.
Whether or not it's in the terms of use or whatever is irrelevant. What Microsoft did is bad practice. They know they already had these people's money and that's why the did it.
If they were a nice company who cared about their users they would have said 'Listen guys, who got two months to get off the crack, but after that we're gonna start dishing out bans'
But no, they didn't do that. They know full well no one gives a rats ass about the end user agreement. Microsoft just took their money and ran.
Graeme Q @ Nov 20th 2009 12:13AM
@sadisticfreak432
Read the proposed lawsuit.
The lawsuit is more about the changes that have occurred which do not relate to live.
MS have changed offline functionality that was already present in a console and that makes things a whole grey area.
MS have the right to ban you from Live but changing offline functions may not hold too much water.
SewerShark @ Nov 20th 2009 6:17AM
@Hooch:
Do you sign a contract without reading? Cause thats is what you are doing.
Imagine if you sign a contract and you lose all your money and properties. Try to get on court claiming that "the contract is invalid cause I didn't readied, I just signed."
Hooch is Craaazey @ Nov 20th 2009 7:20AM
@sewershark
That's my fucking point, making the importamce of the EULA more clear to these idiots would save time wasted on these pointless lawsuits.
I do read the ToCs, but lets be honest many do not, hence this issue.
SimbaDogg @ Nov 20th 2009 11:01AM
on a sidenote, i wonder how/if the 1 million or so banned consoles will effect the install base numbers that microsoft uses. Cause lets be realistic, a 360 w/out being able to access XBL is essentially a dvd player.
Kai @ Nov 23rd 2009 11:16AM
I actually wanted to reply to sadisticfreak. Anyone with any ept to read or who knows anything about copyright law knows that by law you legally allowed to make one backup copy of any game, movie, or cd for yourself in the event that something happens to said disk. The only issue with the backup copy of a game in this case is that you cannot simply put in a backup copy of your game and play it. In order to do this you first have to modify your console. So...what to do. I think Microsoft is going against their copyright agreement by not allowing their customers to legally play a backup of their own games they have purchased. See the problem? This could go round and round.
Solarick @ Nov 19th 2009 2:02PM
Shazaam!!
Hooch is Craaazey @ Nov 19th 2009 2:06PM
Schwwinnggg
RudyHuxtable @ Nov 19th 2009 2:15PM
Blah-dowwww!
Zing @ Nov 19th 2009 2:24PM
My Name!!!
Evilprotagonist @ Nov 19th 2009 2:06PM
Well, to me this sounds very sketchy. I pay full price for xbox live every year and I pay full price for my games. Shame on those who cheat the hard working people who work damn hard to make sure we are entertained.
baby sea tuna @ Nov 19th 2009 2:22PM
Damn sunspots are screwing up my sarcasm detector again! Where's my tinfoil hat?!
Trey @ Nov 19th 2009 3:17PM
XBL must've swung its banhammer too freely and caught one of these folks in the eye.
bozman @ Nov 19th 2009 4:00PM
they must have saved enough money not buying games like the rest of us.go buy a new console and dont be such cheap asses next time.
Jak Logan @ Nov 19th 2009 11:20PM
Oh come on... they probably just modded their console to play homebrew games, and only play games on Live they purchased.
Oh wait...
nickaus805 @ Nov 19th 2009 2:05PM
It seems the opposite of cut and dry to me.
Nicknin10do @ Nov 19th 2009 2:17PM
gnaw and damp?
aristokrat @ Nov 19th 2009 2:17PM
Intact and wet?
RudyHuxtable @ Nov 19th 2009 3:24PM
Snip and hosed off?
CubeGuy @ Nov 19th 2009 5:37PM
I'm thinking Paste and Wet would be the best one.
acefondu @ Nov 19th 2009 2:07PM
It's still "deceptive" for MS to charge to play games online in the first place. Apart from MMO's I can't think of any other online game service that charges. MMO's make sense as they have to upkeep massive servers and are constantly at work to improve/maintain them. MS should get sued just for that alone.
Hooch is Craaazey @ Nov 19th 2009 2:16PM
MS provide their own servers, a very reliable party system and a more streamlined online service.
I still feel it's a bit overpriced, but Sony don't run servers, there is no external party system and it can be unreliable at times.
So there is at least a strip of logic in paying for XBL, but maybe a bit less would be appreicated.
(Coming from a non-biased PS3 gamer, Ex-Xbox)
aristokrat @ Nov 19th 2009 2:20PM
MS doesn't supply their own servers any more than Sony does. All console gaming is P2P, not central.
And anyone who pays more than $30 for Live is doing it wrong. There are plenty of sales, especially at this time of year, going on that bring the cost down.
acefondu @ Nov 19th 2009 2:21PM
Xbox is a fine system, no doubt. People immediately hate it when you diss MS for charging for the service though. I still feel Live is no better than what is offered for free from PSN or PC games. Everything is better than Wii's online though. Still, I do not see a clear translation from dollars spent to improved service on Live at all. SFIV and Tekken 6 lag on both systems no worse or better than the other, and those are just examples I know of personally. I find that the netcode developed by companies who MAKE the games is far more important than whatever MS does with people's $50 a year to play online.
Edge @ Nov 19th 2009 2:23PM
Thank you. I was worried that, in a post about suing Microsoft, there would be no one calling for a lawsuit against Microsoft for being Microsoft. Thanks for maintaining the status quo of ignorance.
If people think Xbox Live is too expensive or they don't get enough benefit out of it... they don't pay for it. That's the free market. It's SUPREMELY ignorant to suggest litigatory action against Microsoft for charging a price for a service.