Maintenance for the week of September 29:
• PC/Mac: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – September 29, 4:00AM EDT (8:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EDT (13:00 UTC)
• Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – October 1, 8:00 UTC (4:00AM EDT) - 16:00 UTC (12:00PM EDT)
• PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – October 1, 8:00 UTC (4:00AM EDT) - 16:00 UTC (12:00PM EDT)
• PC/Mac: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – September 29, 4:00AM EDT (8:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EDT (13:00 UTC)
• Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – October 1, 8:00 UTC (4:00AM EDT) - 16:00 UTC (12:00PM EDT)
• PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – October 1, 8:00 UTC (4:00AM EDT) - 16:00 UTC (12:00PM EDT)
ACCC Complaint 219402
-
FleetwoodSmack✭✭✭✭✭
✭This thread has now been renamed "Elder Lawyers Online".Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies!2 -
otis67✭✭✭Thank you for this. I am laughing and will be for a long time. I have screenshotted this and I am putting this into my "idiots hall of fame"6 -
Iskiab✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Caligamy_ESO wrote: »Section 6: AVAILABILITY OF SERVICES AND CONTENT; GAME MAINTENANCE, PATCHES, UPDATES; TERMINATION OF SERVICES
ZeniMax does not guarantee that any Services will be available at all times, in all countries and/or all geographic locations, at any given time, or that ZeniMax will continue to offer any particular Services for any particular length of time. Except as prohibited by applicable law and subject to the Statutory Obligations (as defined in Section 1), ZeniMax reserves the right to change and update Content without notice to You. ZeniMax also reserves the right to refuse Your request(s) to acquire Content, and to limit or block any request to acquire Content, including, but not limited to, Downloadable Content and Game Mods, for any reason.
Pretty standard Terms of Service agreement I've seen in just about every MMO I have ever played. You do not have any guarantee to services, at any time.
You can tell people’s age by their responses. People who’re young tend to accept being shafted more then when you get older.
Terms of service are a defense but writing something in the terms doesn’t mean it gives the maker carte blanc to do whatever they like.
Add reputations risk plus cost of defense and 99 percent of these things are settled.Looking for any guildies I used to play with:
Havoc Warhammer - Alair
LoC EQ2 - Mayi and Iskiab
PRX and Tabula Rasa - Rift - Iskiab
Or anyone else I used to play games with in guilds I’ve forgotten5 -
Carl-lan✭✭✭✭Nothing will come of this dude. If they respond they’ll tell you to contact ZOS in which case, ZOS have already responded in threads that others have linked. Not sure what you’re trying to achieve, but you just sound like an angry teenager. The type that would call up Telstra when the internet is down for 2 minutes.
Total overreaction.0 -
Lady_Lindel✭✭✭✭When people say 'you agreed to the terms of service' they may be unaware that different countries have differing laws regarding that. Steam for instance had to issue a new Agreement for Australians a while ago, acknowledging that Australians had different rights to the US and they, Steam, had to abide by that. Zenimax is a US company but it still has to abide by the different laws of the countries it operates in.
IF YOU ARE RESIDENT IN THE EEA, SWITZERLAND, RUSSIA, AUSTRALIA OR NEW ZEALAND, ZENIMAX ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN GUARANTEES, WARRANTIES, TERMS AND CONDITIONS (INCLUDING IN RESPECT OF REFUNDS AND RETURNS AND UNFAIR TERMS) IMPOSED BY THE LAWS RELATING TO THE SUPPLY OF GOODS, SERVICES AND DIGITAL CONTENT UNDER THESE TERMS OF SERVICES, THE SUPPLEMENTAL TERMS AND ANY EULA WHICH THE LAWS EXPRESSLY PROVIDE MAY NOT BE EXCLUDED, RESTRICTED OR MODIFIED OR MAY ONLY BE LIMITED TO A CERTAIN EXTENT (THE "STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS"). NOTHING IN THESE TERMS OF SERVICE, THE SUPPLEMENTAL TERMS AND ANY EULA EXCLUDES, RESTRICTS OR MODIFIES THE STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS OTHERWISE THAN ACCORDING TO SUCH LAWS.5 -
Carl-lan✭✭✭✭Lady_Lindel wrote: »When people say 'you agreed to the terms of service' they may be unaware that different countries have differing laws regarding that. Steam for instance had to issue a new Agreement for Australians a while ago, acknowledging that Australians had different rights to the US and they, Steam, had to abide by that. Zenimax is a US company but it still has to abide by the different laws of the countries it operates in.
IF YOU ARE RESIDENT IN THE EEA, SWITZERLAND, RUSSIA, AUSTRALIA OR NEW ZEALAND, ZENIMAX ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN GUARANTEES, WARRANTIES, TERMS AND CONDITIONS (INCLUDING IN RESPECT OF REFUNDS AND RETURNS AND UNFAIR TERMS) IMPOSED BY THE LAWS RELATING TO THE SUPPLY OF GOODS, SERVICES AND DIGITAL CONTENT UNDER THESE TERMS OF SERVICES, THE SUPPLEMENTAL TERMS AND ANY EULA WHICH THE LAWS EXPRESSLY PROVIDE MAY NOT BE EXCLUDED, RESTRICTED OR MODIFIED OR MAY ONLY BE LIMITED TO A CERTAIN EXTENT (THE "STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS"). NOTHING IN THESE TERMS OF SERVICE, THE SUPPLEMENTAL TERMS AND ANY EULA EXCLUDES, RESTRICTS OR MODIFIES THE STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS OTHERWISE THAN ACCORDING TO SUCH LAWS.
And of course, the law that’s states the EU server cannot have a login queue, yeah?0 -
ManwithBeard9✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭I actually love this post.
By operating an office in the Australian territory, it doesn't matter what Terms of Service ZOS outlines - if they can't actually provide the service then they need to cease offering the product as marketable.
Our laws and operating an office here override the caveats of the product provider, on a reasonable basis. Which I'm more than confident that there are enough case examples floating around to demonstrate service is not reasonable.
A seperate but relevant point is that Akamai is not disclosed as impacting product service dleivery; it directly impacts performance through routing through Europe, to America - artificially inflating response time in game and was ONLY added after games launch, without a change in description to sold product.
And the best part? ... This thread cannot be locked down; as another part of operating an office in Australia means you need to provide a platform for clients to clearly and visibly contact product provider, where it is known they will respond.
I've taken the liberty also of recording original post and subsequent responses should any forum moderators be unaware of requirements for Australian consumer law.
You mean like submitting a ticket with Support? So yeah, this thread can be locked.6 -
Bouldercleave✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Caligamy_ESO wrote: »Section 6: AVAILABILITY OF SERVICES AND CONTENT; GAME MAINTENANCE, PATCHES, UPDATES; TERMINATION OF SERVICES
ZeniMax does not guarantee that any Services will be available at all times, in all countries and/or all geographic locations, at any given time, or that ZeniMax will continue to offer any particular Services for any particular length of time. Except as prohibited by applicable law and subject to the Statutory Obligations (as defined in Section 1), ZeniMax reserves the right to change and update Content without notice to You. ZeniMax also reserves the right to refuse Your request(s) to acquire Content, and to limit or block any request to acquire Content, including, but not limited to, Downloadable Content and Game Mods, for any reason.
Pretty standard Terms of Service agreement I've seen in just about every MMO I have ever played. You do not have any guarantee to services, at any time.
You can tell people’s age by their responses. People who’re young tend to accept being shafted more then when you get older.
Terms of service are a defense but writing something in the terms doesn’t mean it gives the maker carte blanc to do whatever they like.
Add reputations risk plus cost of defense and 99 percent of these things are settled.
Yeah, he'll probably get his 10 bucks back...
This is HILARIOUS! Do people really take this stuff THIS seriously? Get a friggin life.
Edited by Bouldercleave on April 15, 2019 1:30AM1 -
Ratzkifal✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Caligamy_ESO wrote: »Section 6: AVAILABILITY OF SERVICES AND CONTENT; GAME MAINTENANCE, PATCHES, UPDATES; TERMINATION OF SERVICES
ZeniMax does not guarantee that any Services will be available at all times, in all countries and/or all geographic locations, at any given time, or that ZeniMax will continue to offer any particular Services for any particular length of time. Except as prohibited by applicable law and subject to the Statutory Obligations (as defined in Section 1), ZeniMax reserves the right to change and update Content without notice to You. ZeniMax also reserves the right to refuse Your request(s) to acquire Content, and to limit or block any request to acquire Content, including, but not limited to, Downloadable Content and Game Mods, for any reason.
Pretty standard Terms of Service agreement I've seen in just about every MMO I have ever played. You do not have any guarantee to services, at any time.
You can tell people’s age by their responses. People who’re young tend to accept being shafted more then when you get older.
Terms of service are a defense but writing something in the terms doesn’t mean it gives the maker carte blanc to do whatever they like.
Add reputations risk plus cost of defense and 99 percent of these things are settled.
People who are old tend to think they are superior just because they ran more laps around our gravity powered nuclear fusion reactor. My observation is that people of all ages tend to be accepting like that and that some others aren't. Actually, if your supposition was correct, then why do scammers often target old people?
You can tell people's age by their responses indeed and I can guess that you are older than some but not quite old enough yet to have gained wisdom.
You are right on ToS not being a carte blanc, but we can assume that ZOS knows their legal stuff and isn't looking into Australian laws for the first time. They know what they can do and what they can't and while companies are not infallible in these matters, the actual issue that OP has filed a complaint on is not exactly strong enough to justify any sort of legal action nor does it carry a reputation risk. If that was the case, then Blizzard would need to be sued too for putting up log-in queues during times of unusually high traffic. There is nothing illegal or unheard of going on here. Nobody is entitled to an uninterrupted 24/7 service just because it is classified as an "MMO". If that was actually the case, it's more likely Zenimax Media would swallow the bitter pill and cease offering their service to and in Australia.Edited by Ratzkifal on April 15, 2019 1:57AMThis Bosmer was tortured to death. There is nothing left to be done.5 -
AzraelKrieg✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭
Gold Dragons Guildmaster PC-NACR2000+Kalthar Wolf-Brother – EP Templar - 50 Maeli Valen - EP NB - 50Naps-During-Trials – EP Templar - 50Rulnakh - EP Sorc - 50Azrael Krieg - EP NB – 50Uvithasa Telvanni – EP DK – 50More-Tail - EP Warden - 50Narile Galen - EP Sorc - 50Bone Soldier - EP Necro - 50Naps-During-Trails - EP Necro - 505 -
Ryknos✭✭✭Androconium wrote: »I am not seeking compensation; I am seeking an immediate remedy to the login queueing restriction, that by Zenimax' own comments, is to limit the number of concurrent players, which is in direct contrast to the concept of "MMO".
Bro if you don't have a solution then don't post senseless and tasteless threats. Post a solution, become a solution, or give up the rouse altogether. Instead you're just adding fire to the problem, good job! You win nothing!Edited by Ryknos on April 15, 2019 2:07AM0 -
starkerealm✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Ydrisselle wrote: »I'm curious what will be the decision on this. Keep us posted.
I'll give you the short version: Australian fit for purpose laws are written around the idea of physical goods. So, for example, if you purchase a game on a DVD, but the disk arrives warped or cracked, then that's not fit for purpose. At that point the law protects you if the retailer you purchased from refuses to replace the item (the law also allows for repairs during a reasonable timeframe as a solution, though that's not relevant in this example.)
This doesn't mean they can't apply to digital services, just that the laws aren't written around the idea. This becomes important when you look at the specific grievances given. Australian consumer law focuses on, "does the product work?" not, "does it work well?"
In the case of ESO, the login queues are unfortunate, but you are allowed to log in. The ping (for an Aussie) may be high, but it doesn't render the product non-functional. Attempting to label either of these as, fit for purpose issues is a little misleading, because, again, the law asks if the product actually functions as described, not your expectations of how the product will behave.
A real, fit for purpose complaint against ESO would be someone buying six months of ESO+, but then not getting it. The money's gone, but their account doesn't have the extra crowns, doesn't have access to the DLC, and is not flagged as ESO+. At that point, you open the customer support ticket, and if customer support were to tell you to take a flying leap, then you'd go to the ACCC about that.
Complaining about ping, or login queues is a non-start. They don't prevent you from using the product as advertised. While the ping sucks, it's not something you can really go to the ACCC for remedy on. Akamai is a more complicated issue, because while the latency coming from that quarter is miserable, it is providing a service necessary to ensure the game is fit for purpose.
If you want an even shorter version, here: Australian consumer protection laws ask, "does the product do what it says it does?" It does not ask, "does the product do what it says it does well?" The OP is conflating the two, and arguing that the service needs to be better to fit their standards, which is not a, "fit for purpose," issue.14 -
Ydrisselle✭✭✭✭✭starkerealm wrote: »Ydrisselle wrote: »I'm curious what will be the decision on this. Keep us posted.
I'll give you the short version: Australian fit for purpose laws are written around the idea of physical goods. So, for example, if you purchase a game on a DVD, but the disk arrives warped or cracked, then that's not fit for purpose. At that point the law protects you if the retailer you purchased from refuses to replace the item (the law also allows for repairs during a reasonable timeframe as a solution, though that's not relevant in this example.)
This doesn't mean they can't apply to digital services, just that the laws aren't written around the idea. This becomes important when you look at the specific grievances given. Australian consumer law focuses on, "does the product work?" not, "does it work well?"
In the case of ESO, the login queues are unfortunate, but you are allowed to log in. The ping (for an Aussie) may be high, but it doesn't render the product non-functional. Attempting to label either of these as, fit for purpose issues is a little misleading, because, again, the law asks if the product actually functions as described, not your expectations of how the product will behave.
A real, fit for purpose complaint against ESO would be someone buying six months of ESO+, but then not getting it. The money's gone, but their account doesn't have the extra crowns, doesn't have access to the DLC, and is not flagged as ESO+. At that point, you open the customer support ticket, and if customer support were to tell you to take a flying leap, then you'd go to the ACCC about that.
Complaining about ping, or login queues is a non-start. They don't prevent you from using the product as advertised. While the ping sucks, it's not something you can really go to the ACCC for remedy on. Akamai is a more complicated issue, because while the latency coming from that quarter is miserable, it is providing a service necessary to ensure the game is fit for purpose.
If you want an even shorter version, here: Australian consumer protection laws ask, "does the product do what it says it does?" It does not ask, "does the product do what it says it does well?" The OP is conflating the two, and arguing that the service needs to be better to fit their standards, which is not a, "fit for purpose," issue.
I'm sure that the result will be something like you just described - however I'm still curious about the exact results
0 -
Iskiab✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Caligamy_ESO wrote: »Section 6: AVAILABILITY OF SERVICES AND CONTENT; GAME MAINTENANCE, PATCHES, UPDATES; TERMINATION OF SERVICES
ZeniMax does not guarantee that any Services will be available at all times, in all countries and/or all geographic locations, at any given time, or that ZeniMax will continue to offer any particular Services for any particular length of time. Except as prohibited by applicable law and subject to the Statutory Obligations (as defined in Section 1), ZeniMax reserves the right to change and update Content without notice to You. ZeniMax also reserves the right to refuse Your request(s) to acquire Content, and to limit or block any request to acquire Content, including, but not limited to, Downloadable Content and Game Mods, for any reason.
Pretty standard Terms of Service agreement I've seen in just about every MMO I have ever played. You do not have any guarantee to services, at any time.
You can tell people’s age by their responses. People who’re young tend to accept being shafted more then when you get older.
Terms of service are a defense but writing something in the terms doesn’t mean it gives the maker carte blanc to do whatever they like.
Add reputations risk plus cost of defense and 99 percent of these things are settled.
People who are old tend to think they are superior just because they ran more laps around our gravity powered nuclear fusion reactor. My observation is that people of all ages tend to be accepting like that and that some others aren't. Actually, if your supposition was correct, then why do scammers often target old people?
You can tell people's age by their responses indeed and I can guess that you are older than some but not quite old enough yet to have gained wisdom.
You are right on ToS not being a carte blanc, but we can assume that ZOS knows their legal stuff and isn't looking into Australian laws for the first time. They know what they can do and what they can't and while companies are not infallible in these matters, the actual issue that OP has filed a complaint on is not exactly strong enough to justify any sort of legal action nor does it carry a reputation risk. If that was the case, then Blizzard would need to be sued too for putting up log-in queues during times of unusually high traffic. There is nothing illegal or unheard of going on here. Nobody is entitled to an uninterrupted 24/7 service just because it is classified as an "MMO". If that was actually the case, it's more likely Zenimax Media would swallow the bitter pill and cease offering their service to and in Australia.
They might stop offering services, yea, that would be a business decision.
Point being it’s not about age but experience. If you think every claim needs to have merit to be presented you’re naive. Like I said, cost of defense is always the first consideration along with reputational risk. In this case the main issue would be proving damages.
Most likely ZOS would ignore it, then management would be overconfident (they usually are) and not settle, then eventually they would with legal costs. That’s if it’s pursued, people usually give up.
Terms of service are more to discourage people then anything else. If you’re offering a product you have obligations that transcend anything else, but it usually doesn’t matter except in safety because it leads to big damage amounts.Edited by Iskiab on April 15, 2019 3:09AMLooking for any guildies I used to play with:
Havoc Warhammer - Alair
LoC EQ2 - Mayi and Iskiab
PRX and Tabula Rasa - Rift - Iskiab
Or anyone else I used to play games with in guilds I’ve forgotten0 -
david_m_18b16_ESO✭✭✭✭✭To everyones claiming ZOS lawyer must have worked it out. If Bethesda was so all knowing of the law they wouldnt had faced the canva bag crap out of Fallout 76.3
-
SilverIce58✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭starkerealm wrote: »Ydrisselle wrote: »I'm curious what will be the decision on this. Keep us posted.
I'll give you the short version: Australian fit for purpose laws are written around the idea of physical goods. So, for example, if you purchase a game on a DVD, but the disk arrives warped or cracked, then that's not fit for purpose. At that point the law protects you if the retailer you purchased from refuses to replace the item (the law also allows for repairs during a reasonable timeframe as a solution, though that's not relevant in this example.)
This doesn't mean they can't apply to digital services, just that the laws aren't written around the idea. This becomes important when you look at the specific grievances given. Australian consumer law focuses on, "does the product work?" not, "does it work well?"
In the case of ESO, the login queues are unfortunate, but you are allowed to log in. The ping (for an Aussie) may be high, but it doesn't render the product non-functional. Attempting to label either of these as, fit for purpose issues is a little misleading, because, again, the law asks if the product actually functions as described, not your expectations of how the product will behave.
A real, fit for purpose complaint against ESO would be someone buying six months of ESO+, but then not getting it. The money's gone, but their account doesn't have the extra crowns, doesn't have access to the DLC, and is not flagged as ESO+. At that point, you open the customer support ticket, and if customer support were to tell you to take a flying leap, then you'd go to the ACCC about that.
Complaining about ping, or login queues is a non-start. They don't prevent you from using the product as advertised. While the ping sucks, it's not something you can really go to the ACCC for remedy on. Akamai is a more complicated issue, because while the latency coming from that quarter is miserable, it is providing a service necessary to ensure the game is fit for purpose.
If you want an even shorter version, here: Australian consumer protection laws ask, "does the product do what it says it does?" It does not ask, "does the product do what it says it does well?" The OP is conflating the two, and arguing that the service needs to be better to fit their standards, which is not a, "fit for purpose," issue.
This is the short version @starkerealm ? I'd hate to see the long one.PC - NACP 1125
Veric Blackwood - Breton Magsorc DC
Xhiak-Qua'cthurus - Argonian Frost Warden EP
Kujata-qa - Khajiit Magplar AD
Suunleth-dar - Khajiit Stamblade AD
Teldryn Antharys - Dunmer Flame DK EP
Strikes-With-Venom - Argonian Poison DK EP
Rur'san-ra - Khajiit WW Stamsorc AD
Ilianos Solinar - Altmer Stamplar AD
Iscah Silver-Heart - Reachman Magden DC0 -
Ratzkifal✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Caligamy_ESO wrote: »Section 6: AVAILABILITY OF SERVICES AND CONTENT; GAME MAINTENANCE, PATCHES, UPDATES; TERMINATION OF SERVICES
ZeniMax does not guarantee that any Services will be available at all times, in all countries and/or all geographic locations, at any given time, or that ZeniMax will continue to offer any particular Services for any particular length of time. Except as prohibited by applicable law and subject to the Statutory Obligations (as defined in Section 1), ZeniMax reserves the right to change and update Content without notice to You. ZeniMax also reserves the right to refuse Your request(s) to acquire Content, and to limit or block any request to acquire Content, including, but not limited to, Downloadable Content and Game Mods, for any reason.
Pretty standard Terms of Service agreement I've seen in just about every MMO I have ever played. You do not have any guarantee to services, at any time.
You can tell people’s age by their responses. People who’re young tend to accept being shafted more then when you get older.
Terms of service are a defense but writing something in the terms doesn’t mean it gives the maker carte blanc to do whatever they like.
Add reputations risk plus cost of defense and 99 percent of these things are settled.
People who are old tend to think they are superior just because they ran more laps around our gravity powered nuclear fusion reactor. My observation is that people of all ages tend to be accepting like that and that some others aren't. Actually, if your supposition was correct, then why do scammers often target old people?
You can tell people's age by their responses indeed and I can guess that you are older than some but not quite old enough yet to have gained wisdom.
You are right on ToS not being a carte blanc, but we can assume that ZOS knows their legal stuff and isn't looking into Australian laws for the first time. They know what they can do and what they can't and while companies are not infallible in these matters, the actual issue that OP has filed a complaint on is not exactly strong enough to justify any sort of legal action nor does it carry a reputation risk. If that was the case, then Blizzard would need to be sued too for putting up log-in queues during times of unusually high traffic. There is nothing illegal or unheard of going on here. Nobody is entitled to an uninterrupted 24/7 service just because it is classified as an "MMO". If that was actually the case, it's more likely Zenimax Media would swallow the bitter pill and cease offering their service to and in Australia.
They might stop offering services, yea, that would be a business decision.
Point being it’s not about age but experience. If you think every claim needs to have merit to be presented you’re naive. Like I said, cost of defense is always the first consideration along with reputational risk. In this case the main issue would be proving damages.
Most likely ZOS would ignore it, then management would be overconfident (they usually are) and not settle, then eventually they would with legal costs. That’s if it’s pursued, people usually give up.
Terms of service are more to discourage people then anything else. If you’re offering a product you have obligations that transcend anything else, but it usually doesn’t matter except in safety because it leads to big damage amounts.
I do think that every claim needs to have merit to be presented, but that does not make me naive. I would be naive to think that every claim has merit. There is a long way from ought to is.
Still, the facts are pretty much clear. As starkrealm pointed out, the Australian fit for purpose laws don't care if the product doesn't work "well" as long as it does work. Seeing how OP could access the NA server without queue the entire time and has access to the same crown balance and ESO+ there, the whole ordeal is kind of pointless and without merit. Especially since the forums is the wrong address and OP should have made a support ticket.This Bosmer was tortured to death. There is nothing left to be done.1 -
Bhaal5✭✭✭✭✭
✭If you have a faulty product, and a company refuses to repair or replace there faulty product.. Accc is there to do there thing
Eso is a faulty product and should be held accountable for that4 -
Shady_Knights✭✭✭This all is due to a lack of support on a longstanding issue impacting the Oce/Sea region.
See: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/439549/oceanic-lag-now-300-400-ms-even-with-a-vpn-was-250-300#latest
21 pages of complaints going back to October with no acknowledgement.
EU server has been under spec'ed from at least January with acknowledgement only now, and confirmation US server will also need additional servers spun up in the comming weeks.
Zenimax sells a defective service in Australia. Complaints to Zenimax have fallen on deaf ears. ACCC is a Government run organisation to protect Australian consumer rights. Unfortunately, when companies don't address issues or even fail to acknowledge them then this is a forum that can help get an outcome.
It used to be playable. It has changed and our complaints have fallen on deaf ears.
4 -
therift✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭david_m_18b16_ESO wrote: »To everyones claiming ZOS lawyer must have worked it out. If Bethesda was so all knowing of the law they wouldnt had faced the canva bag crap out of Fallout 76.
1) I doubt Bethesda's lawyers knew anything about the old switcheroo. Further, it is not known if Bethesda ordered the change or if the fulfillment house screwed up. As far as I know, none of the media interests which covered the story bothered to ask. The dozens of stories that I read seemed to be written by amateur journalists who believe that large corporations routinely set out to screw their customers.
2) I suggest you familiarize yourself with Zenimax's owners. The chairman and co-founder happens to be one of the celebrated attorneys in American history in representing corporations before Federal agencies and the United States Congress. I invite you to look it up yourself. This is the same chairman who beat Facebook out of a half-billion dollar judgment.
3) This will be settled by an exchange of letters by staff attorneys at the ACCC and Zenimax.
0 -
srmalloy✭✭Androconium wrote: »My rights
This is now a formally lodged complaint with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.
The reference number is in the title.
While you're about it, you might also want to do some research and look up the legal term "Vexatious Litigation". ZOS is going to present the ToS to the judge, and your suit is going to be dismissed with prejudice, and then you're going to get hit with a bill for the costs ZoS incurred in having to formally have your suit thrown out.
2 -
starkerealm✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭SilverIce58 wrote: »starkerealm wrote: »Ydrisselle wrote: »I'm curious what will be the decision on this. Keep us posted.
I'll give you the short version: Australian fit for purpose laws are written around the idea of physical goods. So, for example, if you purchase a game on a DVD, but the disk arrives warped or cracked, then that's not fit for purpose. At that point the law protects you if the retailer you purchased from refuses to replace the item (the law also allows for repairs during a reasonable timeframe as a solution, though that's not relevant in this example.)
This doesn't mean they can't apply to digital services, just that the laws aren't written around the idea. This becomes important when you look at the specific grievances given. Australian consumer law focuses on, "does the product work?" not, "does it work well?"
In the case of ESO, the login queues are unfortunate, but you are allowed to log in. The ping (for an Aussie) may be high, but it doesn't render the product non-functional. Attempting to label either of these as, fit for purpose issues is a little misleading, because, again, the law asks if the product actually functions as described, not your expectations of how the product will behave.
A real, fit for purpose complaint against ESO would be someone buying six months of ESO+, but then not getting it. The money's gone, but their account doesn't have the extra crowns, doesn't have access to the DLC, and is not flagged as ESO+. At that point, you open the customer support ticket, and if customer support were to tell you to take a flying leap, then you'd go to the ACCC about that.
Complaining about ping, or login queues is a non-start. They don't prevent you from using the product as advertised. While the ping sucks, it's not something you can really go to the ACCC for remedy on. Akamai is a more complicated issue, because while the latency coming from that quarter is miserable, it is providing a service necessary to ensure the game is fit for purpose.
If you want an even shorter version, here: Australian consumer protection laws ask, "does the product do what it says it does?" It does not ask, "does the product do what it says it does well?" The OP is conflating the two, and arguing that the service needs to be better to fit their standards, which is not a, "fit for purpose," issue.
This is the short version @starkerealm ? I'd hate to see the long one.
Give me a few hours, and I could probably give you a 10 page brief. I just don't particularly want to do the deep dive into Aussie Consumer Protection law to sort it all out.1 -
starkerealm✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Androconium wrote: »My rights
This is now a formally lodged complaint with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.
The reference number is in the title.
While you're about it, you might also want to do some research and look up the legal term "Vexatious Litigation". ZOS is going to present the ToS to the judge, and your suit is going to be dismissed with prejudice, and then you're going to get hit with a bill for the costs ZoS incurred in having to formally have your suit thrown out.
You're thinking about this like it's a civil suit, it's not. At least in the United States it would fall under Administrative Law. Which is a slightly different animal. I have no idea what the ACCC does about false or misleading complaints filed with them, so the penalties may be light or non-existent.1 -
SilverIce58✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭starkerealm wrote: »SilverIce58 wrote: »starkerealm wrote: »Ydrisselle wrote: »I'm curious what will be the decision on this. Keep us posted.
I'll give you the short version: Australian fit for purpose laws are written around the idea of physical goods. So, for example, if you purchase a game on a DVD, but the disk arrives warped or cracked, then that's not fit for purpose. At that point the law protects you if the retailer you purchased from refuses to replace the item (the law also allows for repairs during a reasonable timeframe as a solution, though that's not relevant in this example.)
This doesn't mean they can't apply to digital services, just that the laws aren't written around the idea. This becomes important when you look at the specific grievances given. Australian consumer law focuses on, "does the product work?" not, "does it work well?"
In the case of ESO, the login queues are unfortunate, but you are allowed to log in. The ping (for an Aussie) may be high, but it doesn't render the product non-functional. Attempting to label either of these as, fit for purpose issues is a little misleading, because, again, the law asks if the product actually functions as described, not your expectations of how the product will behave.
A real, fit for purpose complaint against ESO would be someone buying six months of ESO+, but then not getting it. The money's gone, but their account doesn't have the extra crowns, doesn't have access to the DLC, and is not flagged as ESO+. At that point, you open the customer support ticket, and if customer support were to tell you to take a flying leap, then you'd go to the ACCC about that.
Complaining about ping, or login queues is a non-start. They don't prevent you from using the product as advertised. While the ping sucks, it's not something you can really go to the ACCC for remedy on. Akamai is a more complicated issue, because while the latency coming from that quarter is miserable, it is providing a service necessary to ensure the game is fit for purpose.
If you want an even shorter version, here: Australian consumer protection laws ask, "does the product do what it says it does?" It does not ask, "does the product do what it says it does well?" The OP is conflating the two, and arguing that the service needs to be better to fit their standards, which is not a, "fit for purpose," issue.
This is the short version @starkerealm ? I'd hate to see the long one.
Give me a few hours, and I could probably give you a 10 page brief. I just don't particularly want to do the deep dive into Aussie Consumer Protection law to sort it all out.
10 pages? No thanks PC - NACP 1125
Veric Blackwood - Breton Magsorc DC
Xhiak-Qua'cthurus - Argonian Frost Warden EP
Kujata-qa - Khajiit Magplar AD
Suunleth-dar - Khajiit Stamblade AD
Teldryn Antharys - Dunmer Flame DK EP
Strikes-With-Venom - Argonian Poison DK EP
Rur'san-ra - Khajiit WW Stamsorc AD
Ilianos Solinar - Altmer Stamplar AD
Iscah Silver-Heart - Reachman Magden DC0 -
starkerealm✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭david_m_18b16_ESO wrote: »To everyones claiming ZOS lawyer must have worked it out. If Bethesda was so all knowing of the law they wouldnt had faced the canva bag crap out of Fallout 76.
1) I doubt Bethesda's lawyers knew anything about the old switcheroo. Further, it is not known if Bethesda ordered the change or if the fulfillment house screwed up. As far as I know, none of the media interests which covered the story bothered to ask. The dozens of stories that I read seemed to be written by amateur journalists who believe that large corporations routinely set out to screw their customers.
2) I suggest you familiarize yourself with Zenimax's owners. The chairman and co-founder happens to be one of the celebrated attorneys in American history in representing corporations before Federal agencies and the United States Congress. I invite you to look it up yourself. This is the same chairman who beat Facebook out of a half-billion dollar judgment.
3) This will be settled by an exchange of letters by staff attorneys at the ACCC and Zenimax.
My suspicion is it was the fulfillment company. Note how there's no physical CE for Elsweyr. And, yes, I know, "we're going to be putting stuff out throughout the year," but... this is the first time ZOS has pushed a box to market without a CE, and this is the first game to release since Fallout 76's bag debacle.2 -
therift✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭starkerealm wrote: »david_m_18b16_ESO wrote: »To everyones claiming ZOS lawyer must have worked it out. If Bethesda was so all knowing of the law they wouldnt had faced the canva bag crap out of Fallout 76.
1) I doubt Bethesda's lawyers knew anything about the old switcheroo. Further, it is not known if Bethesda ordered the change or if the fulfillment house screwed up. As far as I know, none of the media interests which covered the story bothered to ask. The dozens of stories that I read seemed to be written by amateur journalists who believe that large corporations routinely set out to screw their customers.
2) I suggest you familiarize yourself with Zenimax's owners. The chairman and co-founder happens to be one of the celebrated attorneys in American history in representing corporations before Federal agencies and the United States Congress. I invite you to look it up yourself. This is the same chairman who beat Facebook out of a half-billion dollar judgment.
3) This will be settled by an exchange of letters by staff attorneys at the ACCC and Zenimax.
My suspicion is it was the fulfillment company. Note how there's no physical CE for Elsweyr. And, yes, I know, "we're going to be putting stuff out throughout the year," but... this is the first time ZOS has pushed a box to market without a CE, and this is the first game to release since Fallout 76's bag debacle.
Having an in-depth experience with promotional product fulfillment in a previous career, back in the day when sourcing fabric-based products from the PRC was subject to quota, I strongly suspect a miscommunication between Zenimax and the importer and/or fufillment house. The nylon product substitution looks like an emergency measure. Dropping physical CE products appears to be fallout (pun intended) from a suddenly severed business relationship. I suspect that Bethesda was caught by surprise, perhaps to the point of first hearing about the substitution from customers and the media.
edit:extraneous text
Edited by therift on April 15, 2019 5:37AM1
This discussion has been closed.