Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Mistakenly Sold Fallout 4 For Free On Xbox (polygon.com)
On Thursday the $110 Deluxe Edition Bundle of Fallout 4 appeared in the Xbox store priced at $0.00. The Escapist reports that "The mistake went viral, and there's no telling how people were able to take advantage before the error was corrected..." An anonymous reader shares their report:
If you grabbed Fallout 4 for free on Xbox One, it will be disappearing from your account... Microsoft has confirmed that any copies obtained due to the error will have their license revoked, and the games will disappear from the user's Xbox One library.
Now Microsoft is telling affected users that "your free download will no longer work. For the inconvenience we will deposit $10 by the end of June in your Microsoft Account."
Now Microsoft is telling affected users that "your free download will no longer work. For the inconvenience we will deposit $10 by the end of June in your Microsoft Account."
Why are you comparing revoking a license to something that was never paid for in the first place to something that would represent a serious loss?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
"Our offer of a free upgrade to Windows 10 was an error. Your license will be revoked and the OS will disappear from your PC. For the inconvenience we'll give you a $10 discount on the retail price of Windows 10."
In what way is it a consumer right to get something for free that was not meant to be free?
If an online store offers something for sale at price X and I give them X dollars, then it belongs to me.
If Microsoft didn't want to make that deal ... wait for it ... they shouldn't have offered it.
That X happens to have been 0 is no concern to consumer protection laws.
What would happen if they sell a game for the wrong nonzero price? Can they later force you to "un-buy" that game and repurchase it at the correct price?
Here's a hypothetical situation.
Suppose Microsoft chooses two test subsets of customers and sells the game for two different prices: BasePrice and BasePrice+$5. They do this for a time, and it gives them a differential of games sold versus price.
If the differential reward is higher at the lower price, they stop selling at the higher price and list the lower price for all buyers from then on.
However, if the differential reward is higher, they un-purchase the games at the lower price with the excuse that "it was listed at the wrong price, you have to repurchase at the correct price".
Hmmmm... I think I've discovered a new way to increase market liquidity!
(Any economist should agree that increasing market liquidity is a good thing!)
It takes someone of low intelligence to assume that the $0 price was real and not just a mistake.
On the other hand, Microsoft would have had to pay Bethesda for the lost revenue, as it's not their game to give away for free even if they wanted to.
If you're a slick dealer then you know a $10 credit is very generous compared to how most pricing errors are handled with just a complete cancellation. I watched this event yesterday and most everyone expected a cancellation. Some went to the length of completing the download/install and disconnecting their xbox so they could play through without it being removed.
It sounded like he was saying that no longer being able to use the software isn't a serious loss to the person who obtained it for free. The loss does go both ways though as if Microsoft let them continue to use it the opportunity to sell them it for the price they want to sell it at would be lost, legitimately or otherwise. It seems that some people don't think in terms of legitimate and illegitimate losses. Once you've sold something, the ability to sell that something again is generally considered to be legitimately lost to you.
"Try that at a brick and mortar store."
The store would get sued for false/deceptive advertising and lose. The court would find that the onus is on them to ensure accurate pricing AT ALL TIMES per consumer laws.
Source: I've worked tons of brick and mortar stores.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
A long, long time ago I had to install Windows 95 for a friend so I purchased a copy on floppies because at the time he had no CD reader. To keep the story short when installing the 15thof 25 disks the install would fail. I went back to the store and they replaced it. Again at the 15th disk it failed. I returned to the store and they tested another one of their sets on a system in the store. It failed at the 15th disk. Since it was software it was not refundable and I would have to wait until a new batch came in.
Another time at a different store I purchased Myst on a CD or DVD. The game failed after a couple of day at a specific place. The disc was in perfect condition and in was within the first week. I tried to get a replacement at the store and was told that since it was opened that there is nothing they could do.
On another occasion I bought a game for a console. The packaging was in English with one little note in fine print on the back of the bock that this was the French version. The store would not accept an exchange since the package was opened. I was standing behind a French client who bought an English version which he assumed contained the French language as well. I tried to explain that it was not clearly indicated on the packaging nor in the in-store advertising. I exchanged my copy with the other client and left.
I have other examples where it was my tough luck.
Now we have an "error" on the clients side and we are told that the license will be revoked? The clients paid the advertised price for their license it should be their license to keep. Was the free Windows 10 upgrade a mistake too? Will this be revoked?
DRM? No thanks, I'll just get it somewhere else...
I think Microsoft could afford it. and wouldn't it be swell if mean old Microsoft said, "our bad you lucky freaks can keep your game and thanks for buying Xbox over that Sony thing" (and somewhere in Puget Sound, the body of a careless Microsoft employee is slowly picked-apart by the fishes). There, all's well, the universe made right. Would sure make me feel better about buying an Xbox. Instead, Microsoft exercises its DRM muscle to claw back those game licenses that it, entirely by its own mistake, let loose for a few hours. and next time, they'll take your little dog, too.
In other words, the $0.00 price was entirely their problem, their fault. They should man up and eat it. Instead, it becomes everyone else's problem because, you know, fuck those consumers we don't owe them anything fuck 'em. Well, thanks for nothing, Microsoft. Didn't I read something somewhere about a new 4K Playstation?
Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
True, it's a good point. They're basically doing what Amazon did, only with a bonus $10 ("no hard feeling!"). Companies with DRM don't eat the cost anymore; that's what customers are for.
You have not "bought" something you haven't paid for. If you saw this game available for free and downloaded it that's not buying it. With that being said, this demonstrates the danger of using a platform where a vendor can revoke content and have it removed or otherwise rendered useless after you've downloaded it at any time afterward for any reason. If this weren't software, but instead, was a physical product that was given away in a store and you accepted the free product, took it home and then the merchant decided the giveaway was a mistake and broke into your home to take it back that would be theft on the merchant's part. This is why I refuse to "buy" digital content with DRM. If content has DRM you're not buying it. The vendor can remove the content you've paid for or change the terms of your fair use of that content anytime they want to after you've "bought" it. Any vendor offering up digital content that can be revoked or have the usage terms changed after the "purchase" should be prosecuted for fraud. You're aren't buying anything. In fact, you're not even renting it. At least with a rental the terms are agreed to up front by both parties. Instead you're handing over your hard earned cash under the guise of "buying" something while in fact all you're getting is something temporarily on loan under terms that can be changed anytime the seller feels like it. That's all well and good if the vendor is up front about what's taking place but if they try and portray it as a "purchase" or even a "rental" they are engaging in outright fraud and its long passed time that we started calling these companies out on it!
Regardless of whether it's a loss or not it would set a precedent that if MS sold something and decided later they wanted to charge more then they could theoretically get away with removing said software or billing you the difference between what you paid and how much more they think you should pay.
Any company could get away with it actually. There's no contractual information that says they can't come back to you for more money later.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
Really, slippery slope argument for an obvious pricing mistake? Sigh.
Hah, WORKING at a store it pretty much the worst qualification for claiming to know consumer law I have hear (well, maybe besides "I have bought lots of stuff!")
The court would almost definitely find for the store in any lawsuit - because they HAVE. Pricing errors are NOT bait and switch. Like many legal definitions, bait and switch requires INTENT.
GO look it up. Even Consumerist doesn't think it's bait and switch: https://consumerist.com/2014/0...
A tangible asset mismarked on the shelves at a physical store would except if a few conditions be required to be sold at the lower of the 2 prices. Not sure how that applies to virtual assets sold in an online market place.
Quoting California B&P Code, 12024.2.
(a) It is unlawful for any person, at the time of sale of a commodity, to do any of the following:
(1) Charge an amount greater than the price, or to compute an amount greater than a true extension of a price per unit, that is then advertised, posted, marked, displayed, or quoted for that commodity.
(2) Charge an amount greater than the lowest price posted on the commodity itself or on a shelf tag that corresponds to the commodity, notwithstanding any limitation of the time period for which the posted price is in effect.
(b) A violation of this section is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars ($25) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), by imprisonment in the county jail for a period not exceeding one year, or by both, if the violation is willful or grossly negligent, or when the overcharge is more than one dollar ($1).
(c) A violation of this section is an infraction punishable by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars ($100) when the overcharge is one dollar ($1) or less.
(d) As used in subdivisions (b) and (c), "overcharge" means the amount by which the charge for a commodity exceeds a price that is advertised, posted, marked, displayed, or quoted to that consumer for that commodity at the time of sale.
(e) Except as provided in subdivision (f), for purposes of this section, when more than one price for the same commodity is advertised, posted, marked, displayed, or quoted, the person offering the commodity for sale shall charge the lowest of those prices.
(f) Pricing may be subject to a condition of sale, such as membership in a retailer-sponsored club, the purchase of a minimum quantity, or the purchase of multiples of the same item, provided that the condition is conspicuously posted in the same location as the price.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
You've clearly never worked retail. The cashier would call his friends to quickly "buy" up all the copies. This actually happens. Things get entered with a missed placed decimal. The difference here, the merchandise is virtual so you never really own it, and because they can force the return, they do.
Pricing errors are NOT bait and switch.
Correct. Pricing errors are not bait and switch.
In a brick and mortar environment; the store can cancel the purchase or dishonor the advertised price Up to and until the customer completes the transaction.
After the customer has left with the item, the store cannot come back and decide they want to change the price, Or the price displayed on the shelf and the register was a mistake, and the customer needs to pay the difference.
The store would definitely lose that one. The store is liable if their employees priced an item incorrectly.
The only way the customer is liable to pay more or return is if the error that was made was in the processing of the payment ---- the correct price was advertised, or the customer agreed to a higher price than they paid, and the cashier told the customer the correct price, but they made the check out for a lower amount, etc.
Customer is not responsible if the store made a bad deal with them, only if there was a bonafide mistake in the handling of their transaction where they paid less than the agreed upon price.
Now.... Microsoft's store is a little different, because they have technical control of the product even after you leave the store
There are free games and apps. $0 is often a legitimate price.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
In a brick and mortar environment; the store can cancel the purchase or dishonor the advertised price Up to and until the customer completes the transaction.
If you mean the monetary transaction, this is wrong in many EU countries. Here the advertised price is considered a binding contractual offer and the contract is considered sealed the moment the buyer informs the seller of his intention of buying (not the moment of actually paying). From that moment changing the price would be breach of contract, as it would be breach of contract refusing the sale.
Said that, there is an exception when the wrong price could be recognised as an error: this is because contracts must follow the "good faith" principle and if you had the reasonable suspect that there was an error in the displayed price you were not in good faith.
Nope. I live in a country with much much stronger consumer protection laws than the US, and MS could have done what they did without issue. Obvious errors are errors. You don't need to honor an obvious honest mistake. You do need to honor a dishonest mistake, and honor an honest mistake that isn't obvious, but an obvious mistake doesn't need to be honored.
Learn to love Alaska
Personally I like the idea that consumers are intelligent, moral beings. Taking advantage of an obvious error isn't moral no matter how you slice it, expecting to get what you pay for when it isn't an obvious error is completely different.