XBOX One SHOT DEAD by Redmond following delivery blunder Microsoft has accidentally shipped a small number of Xbox Ones several weeks ahead of the official release date - and banned at least one gamer's new console from connecting to Xbox Live. Redmond's minions admitted their mistake after pictures and video of the new games console were published online. A Twitter user called @ …
The system was auto-banned by a whitelisting process that is currently in place. Honest (automated) mistake, but it still isn't open to the public so I understand why the system is in place.
However, MS has gone above and beyond here.
Major Nelson has talked with him personally. His console will be unlocked a day or two before general release, and he has contact information if that doesn't go as planned.
He is attending the MS launch event on their dime, and most likely will be showered with the usual launch-event gifts and nice-eties.
Target has apologized for selling him a device that doesn't yet work as intended, and has refunded him 100$ for the privilege.
I understand we can get into an argument about how your unit should or shouldn't work - but really - this guy did more than OK.
I really don't care for the fact that the article takes such a negative tone to what is really the story of a BigCorp (™) actually bending over backwards when they messed up.
Karl P
What is interesting is that the gamer in question couldn't launch CoD in offline mode after being banned. If I recall, he couldn't even get into the 'Setting' screen. Effectively, the console was bricked remotely!
Any way, apparently MS have realized that they made a mistake, called the guy and promised him to un-ban his XB1 at launch... as long as he behave until then. And they even invited him to their event.
I can't for the life of me see why anyone would buy a device that can be bricked remotely. I certainly don't intend to. I love my 360 to bits; but it isn't connected to the net and isn't going to be.
Not sure how typical I am as a consumer; but enforced this, that, and the other just isn't a price I'm prepared to pay for gaming so MS have lost themselves at least one customer.
If blocking your online account renders the device you paid for useless you have a point.
If they decide you have broken some item on page 17* of the TOS they can kick you off your own hardware. Bad press might be your only protection (since I'm sure there is also a "can't sue us" in the TOS).
* That might have been added after you bought the xbox. Added with an update that you had to install if you want to keep playing your (rented) games.
"I can't for the life of me see why anyone would buy a device that can be bricked remotely"...
Depends on why it's been bricked.
For example, mobile phone operators can brick mobiles - not a problem, in fact I support that.
If my mobile network give my phone before release and it doesn't work till the release date, I wouldn't mind at all.
IMO MS have a good reason to add a temporary restriction to the kid as it shouldn't have been sent anyway - and the kid wasn't expecting it to arrive yet.
It'll work when the kid should have got it as planned, so nothing to hamper the schedule.
The kid must be over the moon having got the the xbox, MS's response and all the attention.
the cheapskating on memory and GPU means it's only marginally better than the 360, and the Kinect spying thing, the used game policy that can be reversed at any moment, and the really naff "rewards" for gold scheme which is laughable.
Then there is the fact many features don't work outside the US, voice activation for example, no TV guide until late 2014, and so on.
Did I mention it's also doesn't do 3D, and it's £100 more expensive than a PS4?
The list is pretty endless.
You see to have overlooked the Wii U.
I've been a Nintendo fanboy since the mid 80s and even I'm not interested in the Wii U. It'll be the first Nintendo platform that I'm not going to buy. It's a shame that I won't be able to say I've owned every Nintendo console anymore, but oh well.
What's wrong with the Wii U? Anything in particular, or is it not significantly better than the Wii?
I get a sore neck just thinking of looking back and forth between the tablet controller and the TV, for starters. That and Nintendo just doesn't seem to be getting the top titles anymore, apart from their own that is. Not that they did with the Wii, but they had an innovative interaction that changed the whole industry. Who didn't love actually swinging Link's sword? I don't see anything that compelling in the Wii U to make up for it's lack of titles targeted to the 30 something audience that the other consoles target (you know, the first-generation gamers that the industry has grown up with, such as me).
If my kids were a little older it might be different, but they're young enough that they wouldn't know the difference between the Wii games that are about to get a whole lot cheaper and the much more expensive Wii U games, so why spend the extra money for games I won't play and they won't enjoy any more than what I have now?
Have you thought that the game companies are in one big industry and can get on with each other?
Sony's head of studios Shuhei Yoshida loves Nintendo games and has two Wii Us
Xbox manager Larry unpronoucable surname loves Naughty Dog games.
A lot of Naughty Dog staff play Halo and a lot of Bungie Staff play Uncharted.
Because Sony never reduced the functionality of devices through updates once released did they?
Disclaimer: While the poster is the owner of an xbox 360 and will soon be the owner of the xbox one this statement was added for the sake of balance. How I used to look forward to PSP updates as it was great for the 'What will Sony disable next' bingo.
So your argument is that because some one else does worse, it makes this good? Why not learn to look at things in isolation. Remote bricking and walled gardens are bad, no matter who did it first.
Disclaimer: Reading fanboy comments takes me back to being at first school. 'Miss, he hit me'. 'Don't worry it's ok he could have pissed on you as well, so it's fine'.
@Mr Jack (put your hands up, get out of the car.)
I am soooooo sorry I did not give you a list of all of the consoles I currently own. So I take it as a writer of many fanboy comments you are actually in first school right now?
Well just to make you feel better here is a list of console I have that still operate and that are used occasionally
3DO (Yes I was one of the few)
N64
PS One
PS2
Nintendo Wii
Xbox 360
Xbox One (soon)
A few gaming PC's too
Actually looking at that list right there I would find it hard to claim I am a particular fan of any platform, for me it says I am a fan of gaming, and I purchase the device that will have the games I want to play.
Indeed they did...
They removed the otheros option through an update, and in doing so if you had already installed something you lost access to all your own data too (it was still there but you had no way to access it). You then have a choice between not updating and being able to keep the os you installed but not being able to connect to psn or play any new games, or update and lose access to the software you had installed.
People stuck in a walled proprietary mass of BS!
When have consoles ever been anything else?
Face it - a gaming console is a consumer device and in today's brave new world of online enforcement a consumer has zero ownership.
Hordes of lobbyists and enormous amounts of "campaign support money" (bribes) have seen to that.
So guy is crying about his legally purchased (he means licensed), hardware and software has been deactivated as he broke the EULA by using it before the license's he purchased permitted public use of device and software, so the licensers have used what ever right is granted to them by the license he has purchased to stop him breaking the license agreement further. Wonder if he has broken the terms of preorder agreement with the supplier as well as IANAL but i think even if supplier fucks up and sends out early he shouldnt have attempted to use device, obviously that doesnt take into account the real world but since when has laws and contracts ever done that?
Purchased. He bought it. Some muppets might believe they can "license" use and enforce their silly EULA. But they are mistaken. What they CAN do is attempt to prevent you from using services. But this is always based on a unique id, and as you purchased the system you can always change this id via enough know how and effort.
Any T&C will be in regard to the warranty and use of the Live service, not the actual use of the basic console. There was already a post by one of Microsoft's PR guys (Major Nelson) regarding consoles being received early, basically they wouldn't be allowed onto Live until release day or thereabouts (as it wouldn't be turned on for the general public until then anyway), and apart from that nothing would be done.
The only person in trouble is the retailer for shipping it early, and that won't see any legal cases, Microsoft may just be a bit more awkward when it comes to giving them more stock of consoles or games (and even then only if they believe it was deliberate, they all want sold products in the end).
If I get a DVD 5 days before any shops are told to sell it, am I not allowed to play it?
"The EULA is in force and accepted by you when you boot the device the first time, not when you purchase the device/software."
Yes, in the US of A, the country where consumers can be legally screwed by most companies with little to no protection.
But here in Europe the situation is quite different. First, if you buy an XBox console, then the contract is between you and the seller (i.e. the shop that sold you the console), and that's it. It does not include Microsoft so whatever they want simply doesn't matter at this point (of course you might enter into a separate contract with MS later, i.e. by buying XBox Live).
Second, for all contracts, all parties of the contract must be made aware(!) of all properties of this contract at the point when the contract is closed, period.
Displaying some legal gibberish and an 'ACCEPT' button does not automatically make for a valid contract, and most certainly it does not affect one that has been closed before (i.e. the purchase of the console), especially when MS isn't part of the contract parties.
Oh, and in Europe, when consumers buy a physical item (like a console, or a console game on DVD), they actually *buy* the item including the content (software), not just a license like in the US.
EULAs are generally not worth the paper they (aren't) written on.
In most of the world, if they are inside sealed packaging they are completely unenforceable, null and void, and even in the USA there isn't much in the way of precedent that implies they can be enforced.
Nobody wants to be the lawyer that creates a precedent invalidating all the legal work that goes into writing an EULA, so none of them go to court on the EULA itself as opposed to general law.
Aside from that, under EU law a consumer simply cannot give up their statutory rights under any circumstances - and two of those rights are "I bought it, it's mine", and "It has to be fit for purpose".
The clause "We don't say it's fit for purpose"? Legally, that's utter bollocks in the EU.
Not quite: when buying DVDs or games, you still own the physical media but you only ever own the licence to use the software contained therein (which can be revoked if you exploit the copyrighted material outside the terms of your licence).
Ownership of the Intellectual Property remains vested in the copyright holder; this forms the basis of international copyright law. (Example: the licence text around the edge of every music CD or software DVD). I
Small, but important distinction. :)
(Mine's the one with the IP Law textbook in the side pocket)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
