Comments on: Editorial: Microsoft Doesn’t Owe You Anything for Xbox Live Issues

By: scott

scott — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:24:34 +0000

Its not the fact that the service is down, but rather Microsoft’s lack of communication to its own community that pisses me off.

PS: Don’t even get me started on DRM!

By: I was so mad

I was so mad — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 06:29:16 +0000

I was playing COD4 at my friends house..had a FOURTEEN kill streak “host ended” the game, then we couldn’t log back into XBL. Of course the friends would show up…sigh…

By: Wow.

Wow. — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 03:38:40 +0000

Wow Jake that is the most biased piece of shit I have ever heard.
Who are you to say that HDDVD is failing and Blu-Ray isn’t.

PS3s Blu-Ray = PSPs UMD

… and we all know how we love PSP UMDs.

By: Mechwarrior5

Mechwarrior5 — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 23:54:05 +0000

The thing is that it’s not even a month after christmas, which means lots of new 360’s, as well as subscriptions for people who already had one. Though I’m sure Microsoft is working hard to keep the servers working so that people won’t quit.

By: BigT

BigT — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 22:52:08 +0000

Microsoft does not owe anything. We pay for online play. Sounds like world of warcraft and their payments. They have hours down every week, so why isn’t there a lawsuit against them?

By: Metroid74

Metroid74 — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 21:33:25 +0000

The Clause #16 would not fly here in Maine. Local State Law would trump it.

By: ManOfTeal

ManOfTeal — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 19:29:53 +0000

I like pie……

By: Fizzle

Fizzle — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 09:14:04 +0000

They offer it to appease people so they’re less inclined to bring a class action. The disclaimer of warranty looks all well and good, but there are a number of ways to get around this type of language. That said, I’m one of the masses appeased by the game offering. It was an inconvenience, but they took care of the issue reasonably well.

By: steven ratty

steven ratty — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 08:34:35 +0000

the terms are only for the US but were is this lawsuit taking place.

By: Mike K

Mike K — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 03:29:47 +0000

Yea Mike’s a common name, but if you read them all you’d probably know which one is which. By the way Live has been up and running for a while now with no problems, just seemed like we had a hiccup during the holiday season, most likely due to highest traffic.

By: psychic readings

psychic readings — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 02:52:10 +0000

thanks for this article!

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 01:19:39 +0000

For the record, there are now four posts by Mike. This one and the longer one above that starts out with my bold claim that Xbox 360 games are not, infact, HD-DVDs are by me–the other two are another/other user(s) entirely.

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 23:59:19 +0000

To Jake,
To a discussion about the legal matter of Xbox Live, comparing and blasting the 360 is irrelevant and I’d like to point out that Live is a great service. My point was the problem with DRM. Sure the Xbox 360 is not the best system hardware wise but I’ve had perfect service with a new box replacing my dead one. It’s games category is outstanding, five star games including triple A titles as well as unknown instant classics (also play my old Xbox games on it). Also just to point out, every console has peripherals or accessories for it. When you love your machine you want to buy them which aren’t forced things you need to get but are wants just as people get accessories for any other electronic device (like an ipod).

By: Miguel

Miguel — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 23:57:40 +0000

selling my xbox 360 does’nt seem like a bad idea! this guy up block wants to buy my xbox 360

By: David Russell

David Russell — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 23:50:26 +0000

The reason they’re doing it is that exclusion of liability clauses don’t generally apply in the EU unless they’re specifically highlighted to the consumer which this one wasn’t (that’s what ‘You may have additional consumer rights under your local laws that this contract cannot change. To the extent permitted by law…’) is about. So that clause wouldn’t cover them in Europe, which is why they’re doing the promo. Of course it isn’t an absolute prohibition – Microsoft with their legions of fantastic lawyers would still probably win any case, but giving away a free XBLA game is cheaper for them than even defending a hypothetical lawsuit.

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 23:12:09 +0000

Sorry, messed up my math in my above post.

Total cost after 3 years is $595, not $590. So you’ll have to give up one extra starbucks during that three years to make up for it, xbox owners. so sad.

Also, I forgot to point out one other very important point: Up-front costs.

The 360 has a much lower initial cost than the ps3 (and comes with a free month of LIVE for evaluation purposes). So assuming you have a source of income (which you should, if you enjoy such an expensive hobby as video games), the 360 is less of an impact on your wallet, because that $600 is spread out over a period of time. So in that way, it is more affordable at first. Just something else to consider…

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:56:13 +0000

Jake:

Xbox 360 components sold separately:

Xbox 360 Console w/ 20GB HDD – $349.99
~~Wi-fi Adapter – $99.99~~ – You can use an ethernet cord just fine. In fact, you can run it through the wireless connection on your laptop even. Works just fine.
~~Another Controller – $49.99~~ – You don’t need two controllers. Unless, of course, it’s for more than 1 person, in which case you’ll be splitting the cost at the end.
4 AA Chargeable Batteries – avg. $5.99
Chargeable AA Battery Charger – avg. $19.99 – Use a play & charge kit:
Play & Charge Kit – $19.99
Electricity Bill – avg $25 a year (if you play 1-2 hour(s) a day)
LIVE – ~~$60~~$50 a year
-PERSONAL VALUE-
Failure Rate – 33%
Noise kicked out – LOUD
Heat kick out – MELTING THE PLASTIC COAT
Customer Service – Horrible
-TOTAL AFTER 3 YEARS-
~~$781~~$590

That’s better. Of course, once you factor in games, the 360 does become a much greater investment. Oh the pains of having a library of actual, playable games, rather than a list of eventual ones.

And can I just rest my case by pointing out that Sony’s TV advertising campaign right now centers around the MOVIES the PS3 can play, not the GAMES.

PS3 = Glorified Blu-Ray player
X-Box 360 = Video Game Console

and just for fun…

Wii = Innovation beyond that of both the above.

Have a good day.

By: Keith

Keith — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:47:37 +0000

Console gaming is so 1982. You’ve got a computer. Use it.

By: Steve

Steve — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:22:55 +0000

With many service-level contracts and guarantees like this, the recourse you have is minimal. Under normal circumstances your compensation is pro-rated based on the downtime, so if you’re paying $40/year and the cumulative downtime of the system in a year is 2 days, you could argue for a $0.20 reimbursement. In order to get a full refund or any sort of punitive damages you’d need to demonstrate willful misconduct or gross negligence on their behalf. You’d need to demonstrate that they clearly mislead the public and put out a product that substantially failed in terms of the designed functionality. That’s very hard to do if your biggest complaint is that there was a few days of downtime.

Your best recourse is just to complain loudly to customer service and ask to close your account. They’ll likely toss you a bone or two like a free game or a discount in order to keep you as a customer.

By: Francis Esmonde-White

Francis Esmonde-White — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:21:17 +0000

In Quebec, Canada, there are consumer protection laws that prevent ToS like this one from claiming that they owe you nothing even after you pay for the service. Then again, if one took action against them in court, the likely settlement would be for the value of the service, not for exaggerated grievance claims. I’d be surprised if there weren’t local laws in most US states that void that particular clause, to the extent that they are liable for the perceived service level expected at the time of purchase.

There is no absolute “game, set, match” clause here, just something to set up a small roadblock to anyone who doesn’t know their local laws from getting grand plans for litigation. I am fairly certain that in almost any state a judge would determine that the ToS contract constitutes a predatory and unfair agreement, and would void the clause. This type of issue is dealt with by laws that allow class-action lawsuits against shrink-wrap licenses that place the purchaser at a disadvantage (by virtue of a big corporate legal team against the little end-user who has no practical legal recourse).

I think I have previously read about class action lawsuits against cellular service companies regarding this kind of practice.