To all the people who are demanding compensation for server downtime

DurzoBlint13

no one read the TOS the first time, do you really think anyone will read them this time? People want what people want, regardless of what they agreed to

DMuehlhausen

Wow wrote: »

This is why we can't have nice things, that mindset.

Gamers nowadays has turned degenerate and become very very satisfied with subpar services. Thanks to Steam Greenlight, Early Access, etc.

Now if you folks are fine with this, with this kind of server performance. With this kind of services. Then we will be forever doomed with unexpected downtimes and maintenances, and of course no refund or compensation!

So are you okay with this?

Feel free to call me self-entitled brats. Every company that provide services have ToS. ToS exists as their last barrier in case *** happens. The thing is, any decent companies in reality mostly outperformed their ToS. They do their best to deliver their services -> happy customers. When *** happens they would not even hesitate to compensate their customers (at least in place where I work), even though they could just hide behind ToS protection, customers satisfaction is more important.

Has nothing to do with accepting subpar services. It has to do with nothing can be 100% guaranteed. I work for a Terminal Server company. We have the same language in our contracts to cover ourselves. Last week Dell pushed out a bad firmware. This caused an entire host (about 16 terminal servers) to be unusable. We had to take them all down in the middle of the day.

If we didn't have language like that these clients could come after us for more than simple lost money during downtime even though it was completely out of our hands.

Prof_Bawbag

I think certain things should override whatever ToS are attached to the services being offered. For example, in keeping with the game itself, if the servers were down for say 5 days straight and I paid for an entire 1 month membership, I would expect to get a 1 month membership, not a 25 day membership. After all, we all pay our money in good faith for a 30 day sub, not a 25 day sub. By adding 5 days onto any active membership, ZoS wouldn't be compensating people, they'd be honouring the contract between themselves and the consumer.

I love the way both Sony and MS have dressed these things up in the past themselves whenever their services have been offline for days. It's always been a case of them doing it as an act of 'good faith', never because it's the least active subscribers are due.