Xbox Live Bans for Playing Modern Warfare 3 Before Launch

November 4, 2011 -

If you somehow managed (by hook or by crook) to get a copy of Modern Warfare and are trying to play it online via Xbox Live, you'll be treated to a ban. The game officially launches November 8, but apparently Microsoft has noticed that some Xbox Live users have the game and are trying to play it online. Those people are having their accounts banned.

Director of Policy and Enforcement for Xbox Live Stephen Tolouse said via Twitter that playing a legitimately obtained copy of the game online "would be fine," but later backtracked. His first Twitter post on the subject read:

"For those asking about MW3 pre-release play: If your copy is legit and obtained legitly, have fun. It's a great game."

But later he clarified his earlier statement, saying:

"clarification: dblchk'd with Activision. Mw3 pre-release play not authorized. So pls be patient. Playing early may impact your account!"

Yesterday US retailer Kmart broke the "street date"  and began selling copies of the game early "due to a shipping error." Videos of the game's campaign have also begun showing up all over the Internet, including a controversial scene that we won't describe here so that we're not accused of spoiling the campaign. Some are calling it the "No Russian" scene of Modern Warfare 3.

Source: C&VG


Comments

Re: Xbox Live Bans for Playing Modern Warfare 3 Before Launch

This is BS.  Just restrict access to the servers until the go live date and, as suggested by another poster, whitelist previewers/reviewer/testers to be able to use the product.

Or just cop it on the chin and let people play.  They paid for a copy (so it's not like anyone is losing money here).

Banning someone because a store did the wrong thing is crap.  Is every person out in user land supposed to know and understand release dates?  Unlikely.  You see it on the store shelf, you assume that you can play it...

 

Re: Xbox Live Bans for Playing Modern Warfare 3 Before Launch

If people have got their hands on a legitimate copy of the game why shouldn't they be allowed to play the game early?

Many pre-orders turn up early and it seems unfair that the consumer is penalised for this. They're almost pointing the finger at the consumer who has done nothing wrong.

Re: Xbox Live Bans for Playing Modern Warfare 3 Before Launch

I'm ok with this if the ban is lifted after official release.

Re: Xbox Live Bans for Playing Modern Warfare 3 Before Launch

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't Microsoft/Activision run the servers for this game?  Why on earth would they have the servers up and running before launch, and allow people to join and play, and then threaten to ban them for doing so?  Why not oh, I dunno, not let people onto the servers until launch in the first place?  Would that really be so difficult?

Re: Xbox Live Bans for Playing Modern Warfare 3 Before Launch

The people connecting are a combination of pirates and retailers who took copies before street date. The servers are up because employees and media already have access to legit copies. They are only banning the people who shouldn't yet have copies.

Re: Xbox Live Bans for Playing Modern Warfare 3 Before Launch

So keep a list of who should be allowed on, and make that the whitelist to join the server.  Easy peasy.

Re: Xbox Live Bans for Playing Modern Warfare 3 Before Launch

You expect Activision to do what makes sense?

Re: Xbox Live Bans for Playing Modern Warfare 3 Before Launch

No, I guess you have a point there.  It just seems to me a bit like throwing open the doors to a huge party you're having, letting anyone and everyone in, and then calling the cops to arrest anybody not on your guest list.  Why not just keep people who aren't on the guest list from entering in the first place?

Re: Xbox Live Bans for Playing Modern Warfare 3 Before Launch

How exactly is it the consumer's fault that K-Mart broke street date? Why would their accounts be banned for playing online with a game that they legally obtained? Also, why is Microsoft capitulating to Activision's demands? Only K-Mart should be responsible in this situation.

- When you look into the abyss, the abyss also looks into you.

Re: Xbox Live Bans for Playing Modern Warfare 3 Before Launch

Because then Activision would be missing a chance to be complete dickheads, and they can't let that happen.

Re: Xbox Live Bans for Playing Modern Warfare 3 Before Launch

If the scene is being described accurately in the C&VG story, I don't think there's going to be any controversy.

1.  It's a cutscene and not interactive.

2.  The innocents are not killed by the player.

Of course, that won't stop stupid people or liars from claiming "MW3 allows the player to murder children!"

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: Xbox Live Bans for Playing Modern Warfare 3 Before Launch

1.  It's a cutscene and not interactive.

2.  The innocents are not killed by the player.

If that actually keeps people from getting batty over it, I'll be honestly surprised.

----
Papa Midnight

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Which group is more ethically challenged?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Goth_SkunkeZeek: No, I do not agree they are union members.07/07/2015 - 7:48pm
E. Zachary KnightTeachers unions are just as bad as police unions, except of course you are far less likely to be killed by a teacher on duty than you are a cop. But they also protect bad teachers from being fired.07/07/2015 - 6:29pm
E. Zachary KnightGoth, so you agree they are still union members. Thankfully we have a first ammendment that protects people from being forced to join groups they don't support (in most cases any way.)07/07/2015 - 6:27pm
E. Zachary KnightAh, police unions. The reason why cops can't get fired when they beat a defenseless mentally ill homeless person to death. Or when they throw a grenade into a baby's crib. Or when theykill people they were called in to help not hurt themselves.07/07/2015 - 6:26pm
Goth_SkunkeZeek: Non-union employees have no right to attend meetings or union convention/AGM, or influence policy. The only time they get to vote is whether or not to strike.07/07/2015 - 6:24pm
Infophile(cont'd) about non-union police officers being given hell until they joined the union.07/07/2015 - 4:58pm
InfophileParadoxically, the drive in the US to get rid of unions seems to have left only the most corrupt surviving. They seem to be the only ones that can find ways to browbeat employees into joining when paying dues isn't mandatory. I've heard some stories ...07/07/2015 - 4:57pm
Matthew WilsonI am old school on this. I believe its a conflict of interest to have public sector unions. that being said, I do not have a positive look on unions in general.07/07/2015 - 3:59pm
TechnogeekWhat's best for the employee tends to be good for the employer; other way around, not so much. So long as that's the case, there's going to be a far stronger incentive for management to behave in such a way that invites retalitation than for the union to.07/07/2015 - 3:10pm
TechnogeekTeachers' unions? State legislatures. UAW? Just look at GM's middle management.07/07/2015 - 3:05pm
TechnogeekIn many ways it seems that the worse a union tends to behave, the worse that the company's management has behaved in the past.07/07/2015 - 3:02pm
james_fudgeCharity starts at home ;)07/07/2015 - 2:49pm
james_fudgeSo mandatory charity? That sounds shitty to me07/07/2015 - 2:49pm
E. Zachary KnightGoth, if Union dues are automatically withdrawn, then there is no such thing as a non-union employee.07/07/2015 - 2:38pm
Goth_Skunka mutually agreed upon charity instead.07/07/2015 - 2:33pm
Goth_Skunkyou enjoy the benefits of working in a union environment. If working in a union is against your religious beliefs or just something you wholeheartedly object to, dues will still be deducted from your pay, but you can instruct that they be directed towards07/07/2015 - 2:33pm
Goth_SkunkBasically, if you are employed in a business where employees are represented by a union for the purposes of collective bargaining, whether or not you are a union member, you will have union dues deducted from your pay, since regardless of membership,07/07/2015 - 2:32pm
Goth_SkunkIt's something that has existed in Canada since 1946. You can read more on it here: http://ow.ly/PiHWR07/07/2015 - 2:27pm
Goth_SkunkSee, we have something similar in Canada, called a "Rand Employee." This is an employee who benefits from the collective bargaining efforts of a union, despite not wanting to be a part of it for whatever reason.07/07/2015 - 2:22pm
Matthew Wilson@info depends on the sector. for example, have you looked at how powerful unions are in the public sector? I will make the argument they have too much power in that sector.07/07/2015 - 12:39pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician