4 ms·

In this case the legality of modded consoles to play backup isn't an issue because it sounds like Microsoft have something specific in the Xbox Live TOS to cove

by robryan 17y ago

buro9 17y ago
For as long as I've been gaming there has been piracy. Throughout this the game industry not only survived but flourished. I simply don't buy the reasons for this as being "to protect the game industry"... like music before it this is not what gets protected. What gets protected are the distribution methods and those go a way to protecting the artificial price... in other words, I believe that DRM only protects the profits of those who control the distribution.
stingraycharles 17y ago
In this case the legality of modded consoles to play backup isn't an issue because it sounds like Microsoft have something specific in the Xbox Live TOS to cover all modded consoles. IANAL, but I believe that over here, that doesn't matter: if something is said to be legal by law, no company can forbid its customers to do so. Just like with renting an apartment: a landlord can demand all kinds of ridiculous things, but if there is a law that explicitly protects certain rights for homeowners, a landlord simply cannot take those from you. It's the same with a TOS: a company simply cannot take certain rights away from you if a country's laws explicitly protect these rights.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  I think that because it is the online service they have a much more solid footing - they can say under what circumstances you are allowed to connect to their network. I cant comment on the specific Netherlands law but I am fairly certain most laws have solid provision for companies deciding what they consider right/wrong on their own networks. If you want to consider another example what happens if a cheat hack appears that gives you a big advantage over other online players; would M$ be within their rights to ban you then? Is the only difference that gamers believe one to be morally wrong (cheating) and one to be floating somewhere in the middle (chipping)
  - stingraycharles 17y ago
    If you want to consider another example what happens if a cheat hack appears that gives you a big advantage over other online players; would M$ be within their rights to ban you then? Is the only difference that gamers believe one to be morally wrong (cheating) and one to be floating somewhere in the middle (chipping) I get your point, since one is a software mod and the other is a hardware mod. The difference is that our law says nothing about software modifications, while it does explicitly allow a consumer to mod consoles: you have the right to be able to make a backup disc of any game you purchase, and use those backup disks to play the games. You need to mod your console for that, and you can literally walk into any computer store and ask your X-Box to be modded. But, I think you made a good point: the hardware in essense makes the software function differently, so if you would convert a certain software cheat to a hardware mod (if it were possible), you have a problem. So I think the (legal) matter, in the end, is intent. This is why I think it's weird that Microsoft chose to ban all people that modded their console, instead of all the people that pirated games. One targets the fact that a hardware modification was made, the other targets the intent.
    - ErrantX 17y ago
      Well I guess the answer (and I dont necessarily support it) they'd give is that there is no real way to tell what the intent is and so better safe than sorry. There is also an argument that chipping could introduce unknown bugs or weird factors that affect online games - or indeed other users. So a sort of unintentional hacking.
- eli 17y ago
  The ability to use Microsoft's servers for online gameplay is not a "right." While there may be laws that give specific rights to tenants, there is no such law for game players. At best, banned players could sue Microsoft for fraud, but I think they'd have a weak case and it would certainly not be "illegal."
brodie 17y ago
Another interesting side effect of the ban is that it disables the ability to install and run games from the console's hard drive. Is crippling the console's built-in functionality - which is unrelated to Xbox Live - a fair move? I would imagine the TOS to be irrelevant in that case, since it's not related to their online service.
herval 17y ago
actually there are two main types of modders: the ones that play backup copies (but buy original) and the ones that buy pirates, but pay for a Live account to pay online. Blocking both is automatically a loss for MS: it will take a lot of people away from the Live signature row AND it will be a great incentive for the backup-players to simply go looking for another platform (PS3, which finally reached a lower price?). Yes, piracy is a problem to the industry - but simply banning everybody like that won't help solving it in any way (at least for MS)...

by robryan 17y ago

buro9 17y ago

For as long as I've been gaming there has been piracy. Throughout this the game industry not only survived but flourished. I simply don't buy the reasons for this as being "to protect the game industry"... like music before it this is not what gets protected. What gets protected are the distribution methods and those go a way to protecting the artificial price... in other words, I believe that DRM only protects the profits of those who control the distribution.

stingraycharles 17y ago

In this case the legality of modded consoles to play backup isn't an issue because it sounds like Microsoft have something specific in the Xbox Live TOS to cover all modded consoles. IANAL, but I believe that over here, that doesn't matter: if something is said to be legal by law, no company can forbid its customers to do so. Just like with renting an apartment: a landlord can demand all kinds of ridiculous things, but if there is a law that explicitly protects certain rights for homeowners, a landlord simply cannot take those from you. It's the same with a TOS: a company simply cannot take certain rights away from you if a country's laws explicitly protect these rights.

ErrantX 17y ago
I think that because it is the online service they have a much more solid footing - they can say under what circumstances you are allowed to connect to their network. I cant comment on the specific Netherlands law but I am fairly certain most laws have solid provision for companies deciding what they consider right/wrong on their own networks. If you want to consider another example what happens if a cheat hack appears that gives you a big advantage over other online players; would M$ be within their rights to ban you then? Is the only difference that gamers believe one to be morally wrong (cheating) and one to be floating somewhere in the middle (chipping)
- stingraycharles 17y ago
  If you want to consider another example what happens if a cheat hack appears that gives you a big advantage over other online players; would M$ be within their rights to ban you then? Is the only difference that gamers believe one to be morally wrong (cheating) and one to be floating somewhere in the middle (chipping) I get your point, since one is a software mod and the other is a hardware mod. The difference is that our law says nothing about software modifications, while it does explicitly allow a consumer to mod consoles: you have the right to be able to make a backup disc of any game you purchase, and use those backup disks to play the games. You need to mod your console for that, and you can literally walk into any computer store and ask your X-Box to be modded. But, I think you made a good point: the hardware in essense makes the software function differently, so if you would convert a certain software cheat to a hardware mod (if it were possible), you have a problem. So I think the (legal) matter, in the end, is intent. This is why I think it's weird that Microsoft chose to ban all people that modded their console, instead of all the people that pirated games. One targets the fact that a hardware modification was made, the other targets the intent.
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    Well I guess the answer (and I dont necessarily support it) they'd give is that there is no real way to tell what the intent is and so better safe than sorry. There is also an argument that chipping could introduce unknown bugs or weird factors that affect online games - or indeed other users. So a sort of unintentional hacking.
eli 17y ago
The ability to use Microsoft's servers for online gameplay is not a "right." While there may be laws that give specific rights to tenants, there is no such law for game players. At best, banned players could sue Microsoft for fraud, but I think they'd have a weak case and it would certainly not be "illegal."

brodie 17y ago

Another interesting side effect of the ban is that it disables the ability to install and run games from the console's hard drive. Is crippling the console's built-in functionality - which is unrelated to Xbox Live - a fair move? I would imagine the TOS to be irrelevant in that case, since it's not related to their online service.

herval 17y ago

actually there are two main types of modders: the ones that play backup copies (but buy original) and the ones that buy pirates, but pay for a Live account to pay online. Blocking both is automatically a loss for MS: it will take a lot of people away from the Live signature row AND it will be a great incentive for the backup-players to simply go looking for another platform (PS3, which finally reached a lower price?). Yes, piracy is a problem to the industry - but simply banning everybody like that won't help solving it in any way (at least for MS)...