Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 Next »
Reply To Thread

How can SE compensate?Follow

#102 Aug 25 2013 at 12:25 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
**
728 posts
Pawkeshup wrote:
Everything


Dude, I'm pretty sure every one of your posts is bannable. Personal attacks are for kids, kid. Grow the #$%^ up. People are allowed to be upset about problems and have opinions different from yours.

That being said, now I keep getting disconnected from the lobby, can't even see if ANY servers are up.
____________________________
FFXI: DamienSlvrblade Race: Elvaan Nation: San d'Oria Server: Sylph 2002-2007, Phoenix 2012
PUP WHM PLD MNK BLU BST SAM WAR BLM 99 BRD THF NIN DNC SMN RDM 50+

FFXIV: Damien Scott Race: Duskwight Elezen GC: Limsa Lominsa Server: Ultros
DoW GLA50 ACN50 PUG50 MAR 50 Rest30+
DoH/DoL All 40+
#103 Aug 25 2013 at 12:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
I skimmed over the TOS for ARR and they said the same thing, more or less. They promise to fix or replace the client of the game for the first ninety days after you buy it if it doesn't work. They make no guarantees the servers will be up at all.

You don't own your characters or any of the data, SE does. Section 2.1.

You also agreed not to sue them. That was most of section 4.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#104 Aug 25 2013 at 12:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*
148 posts
Fanboy-ism aside, the main reason I give SE credit is because, in the end... they didn't have to revive this game at all. They could have just let it die and moved on to any number of other projects. From a business perspective, I'm not exactly sure what their investment/quota ratio is for this game, but I don't think they are expecting to make an instant killing with this. They made a hasty mistake, recognized it, and are doing what they can to right it.

Everyone has his or her own own opinion about what should be done or added to the launch. For them to meet each request is really just an impossible dream - it simply cannot be done. Although there is still lots to be done (which, quite frankly, should be a given at this early stage - I'd be genuinely surprised if things ran as if the servers have been online for the last 5 years), I'm pretty confident that, over time, the issues will be addressed and we will be satisfied... otherwise, this revival would hold no meaning. :)

____________________________
Proud PS3 User

Final Fantasy Addict

"No act of kindness, no matter how small, goes unrewarded" -- Aesop
#105 Aug 25 2013 at 12:27 PM Rating: Good
****
4,148 posts
If you guys look closely at the pre-order dates and deadlines, you'd all see that your compensation is already built in. It isn't there because they feel you're owed it, but it's there nonetheless. I wish I had something cool to give away for the first person to find the easter egg Smiley: tongue
____________________________
Rinsui wrote:
Only hips + boobs all day and hips + boobs all over my icecream

HaibaneRenmei wrote:
30 bucks is almost free

cocodojo wrote:
Its personal preference and all, but yes we need to educate WoW players that this is OUR game, these are Characters and not Toons. Time to beat that into them one at a time.
#106 Aug 25 2013 at 12:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
1,208 posts
I think they should provide a t-shirt that says "I survived early access"
____________________________
The Kraken Club - (Ultros FC)
Character Name: Meat Mithkabob
#107 Aug 25 2013 at 12:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
1,208 posts
Double post accident sorry.

Edited, Aug 25th 2013 2:28pm by Hairspray
____________________________
The Kraken Club - (Ultros FC)
Character Name: Meat Mithkabob
#108 Aug 25 2013 at 12:28 PM Rating: Excellent
**
598 posts
Hairspray wrote:
I think they should provide a t-shirt that says "I survived early access"


I would totally wear that. Needs my Miqo'te sitting in a lobby on the back.
____________________________
Sour Cherry
#109 Aug 25 2013 at 12:33 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
*
220 posts
A minion and some free game time would do alot to appease people I think.
____________________________
#110 Aug 25 2013 at 12:34 PM Rating: Good
Loris wrote:
Although I'm being as patient as I can, I'm beginning to wonder how this really will affect the game going forward. Considering most of us can't play, and the extra salt rub in the wound that the JP servers appear up and working. It's just an overall negative impression, considering the fragile position they are in. They've got pretty much this week or so and the gaming community microscope is on them. Obviously they wouldn't have it this way on purpose, but fixes and stability need to come NOW.


And they are, as quickly as they can make them. Again, one and a half days since early access opened.

Loris wrote:
Will people actually follow through? I mean cancelling orders and moving on? Or will it be like most things these days - complain, complain, complain, become apathetic and forget about it. I mean look at the world in general - people hate Walmart, they hate Google, they hate Microsoft, they hate Gamestop, they hate Verizon and they rage and rage on the Internet about it. Then they happily go load their cart at Walmart, pull out their Verizon Android phone and Google search for the nearest Gamestop where they pick up a few games for their XBOX 360. Then they go home, go online and rage some more.


I hate what Wal-Mart represents because they are a big company that is crushing diversity and feeding a disposable society. I hate Microsoft for eliminating all competition in the OS market for an extremely long time through unfair business practices. I love Google and Gamestop. Verizon I have no dealings with up here, they don't exist.

As for my XBox 360, I bought a new one simply because I already have a stack of games after receiving it as a present. Not buying the XBOne because of all the horrible, horrible times I've had on XBox 360 with the actual equipment (first red-ringed, second overheated often), and their terrible policies. I was nearly at the same point with SE after all my time with FFXI, but after playing this game, I decided, well, **** it, the game is good enough reason to stay. For now.
____________________________
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/pawkeshup
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/pawkeshup
Twitch: http://www.twitch.tv/pawkeshup
Blog: http://pawkeshup.blogspot.com
Olorinus the Ludicrous wrote:
The idea of old school is way more interesting than the reality
#111 Aug 25 2013 at 12:36 PM Rating: Good
I just want Square Enix to take the game down for everyone and do the full maintenance instead of ending maintenance early (since it obviously does not help). Split each server into multiple servers to handle the work load instead of one server trying to handle everything. Basically, the server can only process a certain amount of commands at once and since there is no overflow system in place there is no where for the additional commands to go. Therefore your command is rejected and you get a nasty error message.
#112 Aug 25 2013 at 12:37 PM Rating: Excellent
8 posts
Ivart wrote:
The issue is narrow - ignore my (and others') colorful argumentative characterizations - here's the question presented: Whether a contractual hold harmless agreement can be enforced against a claim of reasonable commercial expectation. 30 minutes in Am Jur or WestLaw or your favorite research tool and you'd being writing your opposition to SE's Motion to Dismiss. And um yes I do know what I'm talking about lol. No charge.


You speak of contracts and yet you probably haven't read more than half of the EULA you agreed to before you made your first login.
#113 Aug 25 2013 at 12:39 PM Rating: Decent
33 posts
Since I'm at home, I went to Google Scholar and searched legal documents for "contract unenforceable" - and this is the first case that pops up: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16049594513709134145&q=contract+unenforceable&hl=en&as_sdt=2,46 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 745 (2000), 24 Cal.4th 83, 6 P.3d 669 Marybeth ARMENDARIZ et al. v. FOUNDATION HEALTH PSYCHCARE SERVICES, INC.

Check page 767 on unconscionability - this is not the same argument I mentioned earlier about contacts not waiving common law rights, but it is an interesting angle - since you are required to agree to the SE contract in order to play, SE has unfair bargaining power and therefore the contract provision is unenforceable. Not saying this is the end of it but this would make a nice section II of the opposition brief and I'm telling ya at $30 a pop the court would not dismiss the claim. And what some of you guys are saying about the contract being enforceable and the EA time being not really what was paid for is exactly what SE's position would be, I get that. It's all about having right on your side, smiling at the judge and having an effective legal writing style.

Here's Page 767: We explained the judicially created doctrine of unconscionability in Scissor-Tail, supra, 28 Cal.3d 807, 171 Cal.Rptr. 604, 623 P.2d 165. Unconscionability analysis 767*767 begins with an inquiry into whether the contract is one of adhesion. (Id. at pp. 817-819, 171 Cal.Rptr. 604, 623 P.2d 165.) "The term [contract of adhesion] signifies a standardized contract, which, imposed and drafted by the party of superior bargaining strength, relegates to the subscribing party only the opportunity to adhere to the contract or reject it." (Neal v. State Farm Ins. Cos. (1961) 188 Cal.App.2d 690, 694, 10 Cal.Rptr. 781.) If the contract is adhesive, the court must then determine whether "other factors are present which, under established legal rules — legislative or judicial — operate to render it [unenforceable]." (Scissor-Tail, supra, at p. 820, 171 Cal.Rptr. 604, 623 P.2d 165, fn. omitted.) "Generally speaking, there are two judicially imposed limitations on the enforcement of adhesion contracts or provisions thereof. The first is that such a contract or provision which does not fall within the reasonable expectations of the weaker or `adhering' party will not be enforced against him. [Citations.] The second — a principle of equity applicable to all contracts generally — is that a contract or provision, even if consistent with the reasonable expectations of the parties, will be denied enforcement if, considered in its context, it is unduly oppressive or `unconscionable.' " (Ibid.) Subsequent cases have referred to both the "reasonable expectations" and the "oppressive" limitations as being aspects of unconscionability. (See A & M Produce Co. v. FMC Corp. (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 473, 486-487, 186 Cal.Rptr. 114 (A & M Produce Co.).)

Edited, Aug 25th 2013 2:46pm by Ivart
#114 Aug 25 2013 at 12:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*
65 posts
Hairspray wrote:
I think they should provide a t-shirt that says "I survived early access"


"I survived the First Umbral Error"
#115 Aug 25 2013 at 12:41 PM Rating: Excellent
6 posts
Hello all! I used to come to Allakhazam (I guess you don't call it that anymore) back in my EQ days, but I wanted to pop in and provide my perspective here.

I'm not legacy with FF:ARR, so let's get that out of the way first of all, but this game is awesome. I love it. I, too, have been reading the official forums, and it's kind of depressing over there. I've been EXTREMELY LUCKY - all of these problems affecting a lot of people have not made an appearance for me. Yesterday I played for about five hours with no problems at all; I ran four or five instances through Duty Finder with groups, progressed through my story, etc. It was great. Even today I've been able to play and enter instances with no problems whatsoever. However, I know this is not the case for everyone, and I am sorry for that.

But I am saddened at the amount of backlash and terrible things being said toward the company. One of the reasons I came to FF:ARR was because of the great things I heard about its community. I lurked on your forums for awhile, I was in the official beta forums - everything was (generally) well-mannered. I wish people would be a bit more patient. I know the OP of this thread doesn't want to hear the "it always happens" argument, but - it kind of does always happen with large MMOs like this. Neverwinter was a mess. WoW was horrific, even weeks into its launch. Dota 2 (not even an MMO, but a game that's "always online," frequently encounters server issues and hiccups. I feel that, if we as a community are going to play MMO games, we need to adopt a certain amount of empathy and patience for the people running these games - it takes a lot of resources, some of which are even out of their control. The game is wonderful, truly a gem - thanks for reading, everyone!
#116 Aug 25 2013 at 12:42 PM Rating: Decent
Takaiana of the Ten Storms wrote:
I just want Square Enix to take the game down for everyone and do the full maintenance instead of ending maintenance early (since it obviously does not help). Split each server into multiple servers to handle the work load instead of one server trying to handle everything. Basically, the server can only process a certain amount of commands at once and since there is no overflow system in place there is no where for the additional commands to go. Therefore your command is rejected and you get a nasty error message.

Honestly, I'd love for them to be able to do that, but just look at the hatred they are getting over trying to give people at least some access. I mean, it's a lose-lose for them, so they take the lesser of two evils and keep dropping the servers when the load gets bad and something else flies off.

DamienSScott wrote:
Pawkeshup wrote:
Everything


Dude, I'm pretty sure every one of your posts is bannable. Personal attacks are for kids, kid. Grow the #$%^ up. People are allowed to be upset about problems and have opinions different from yours.

That being said, now I keep getting disconnected from the lobby, can't even see if ANY servers are up.

What ******* personal attacks? Please, oh please point me to one. I'm telling people to just stop with the ridiculous amount of rage, and trying to show them that it's completely insane to be this upset over a video game! The worst I've said thus far is that people are making themselves look retarded, and calling that one guy who wants to sue a moron... well cuz he's a moron. That's not really debatable. The sue all the things culture needs to die. And not the people, just the idea of it. It's caused so much more of a problem than it's fixed.

Plus, trust me, if I were doing banable deeds, people are watching. In fact three people are watching, right Sovjohn, StateAlchemist, and Thayos? I'd have at least an IM by now.
____________________________
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/pawkeshup
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/pawkeshup
Twitch: http://www.twitch.tv/pawkeshup
Blog: http://pawkeshup.blogspot.com
Olorinus the Ludicrous wrote:
The idea of old school is way more interesting than the reality
#117 Aug 25 2013 at 12:43 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
6 posts
Pawkeshup, Averter of the Apocalypse wrote:
There is a ton of hype and investment in every game.

We are at day #2 of a pre-launch access period.

They will fix the congestion issues, and everyone will play.

Now go away.


This is about the best reply for this topic. WoW was rough for about 3 months after launch from beta. Every other MMO had it's hiccups early.
____________________________
Subscribe to my channel for up to date FFXIV ARR Beta gameplay and commmentary
https://www.youtube.com/user/TheXylegamer
#119 Aug 25 2013 at 12:47 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,755 posts
Error 37, I remember.

Anyway, tired of listening to the legacy intro but want the music?

I got your answers right here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b96rrbo-_Ik huehuehue
____________________________
Dwayna
75WHM 75BLM
94+2 Clothcraft
Lakshmi
#120 Aug 25 2013 at 12:51 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
2,426 posts
Thayos wrote:
Yeah, so...

Some people really need to chill out!

Look, I pretty much planned on doing nothing this weekend except playing FFXIV... just like all y'all. Unfortunately, though, a newly launching MMO had problems (GASP!). So, I couldn't just sit in one place and punch buttons all weekend.

You know what I did instead?

I barbecued... I watched a movie with my wife... we made a rare DQ run and got blizzards... I did a little extra work... did some laundry... played with the cats... talked to some family... shot the breeze with my neighbor... and, amid all of that, still spent plenty of time in FFXIV.

This morning, I saw there was more maintenance coming, so I didn't even try to log in. Instead, I went to the gym, swam for 35 minutes, got a nice cup of coffee and took my time driving back home.

Here's what I didn't do:

I didn't get mad or angry. I didn't pound my keyboard. I didn't write up imaginary class-action lawsuits. I didn't spew ignorant, condescending remarks toward a development team (and company) that dove into red ink just to please us.

It's OK to be bummed about this, but anyone who is seriously angry about this needs to step back. There's no good reason to have so much negative energy over incredibly short-term MMO server outages. Seriously... take a breather. Most of us (I think) are adults, and we're immersed each day in real problems with real consequences. Don't let something that's ultimately fun and meaningless become so serious that it makes you anxious or stressed out.

Just... relax.

Edited, Aug 25th 2013 10:26am by Thayos


It's so sad that its necessary to say things like this. The infantilism in this country is appalling.
____________________________
monk
dragoon

#121 Aug 25 2013 at 12:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
***
2,426 posts
DamienSScott wrote:
Pawkeshup wrote:
Everything


People are allowed to be upset about problems

.



it might be worth considering why you a) consider some bugs in a game to be a problem that you're having, and b) are upset over it

problems are things like: my basement got flooded, my in-laws hate me, there's a rash on my privates. that sort of thing.
____________________________
monk
dragoon

#122 Aug 25 2013 at 12:57 PM Rating: Default
Catwho wrote:
I skimmed over the TOS for ARR and they said the same thing, more or less. They promise to fix or replace the client of the game for the first ninety days after you buy it if it doesn't work. They make no guarantees the servers will be up at all.

You don't own your characters or any of the data, SE does. Section 2.1.

You also agreed not to sue them. That was most of section 4.


Majority of TOS stuff is nothing more than a scarecrow. The nature that TOS are required and give no ability to counter offer make for a lot of invalid clauses. Companies are hoping that by making it visible it will deter most lawsuits as well as giving them some legal standing. However courts tend to look far less favorably when the contract power is so one-sided. Contracts can say anything they want, enforceable or not. Anything that is not enforceable is just invalid. If they game doesn't work you most certainly can sue them TOS or not. That being said nothing they have done so far would likely hold up in a breach of contract
#123 Aug 25 2013 at 12:59 PM Rating: Excellent
*
131 posts
Ivart wrote:
Here's Page 767: We explained the judicially created doctrine of unconscionability in Scissor-Tail, supra, 28 Cal.3d 807, 171 Cal.Rptr. 604, 623 P.2d 165. Unconscionability analysis 767*767 begins with an inquiry into whether the contract is one of adhesion. (Id. at pp. 817-819, 171 Cal.Rptr. 604, 623 P.2d 165.) "The term [contract of adhesion] signifies a standardized contract, which, imposed and drafted by the party of superior bargaining strength, relegates to the subscribing party only the opportunity to adhere to the contract or reject it." (Neal v. State Farm Ins. Cos. (1961) 188 Cal.App.2d 690, 694, 10 Cal.Rptr. 781.) If the contract is adhesive, the court must then determine whether "other factors are present which, under established legal rules — legislative or judicial — operate to render it [unenforceable]." (Scissor-Tail, supra, at p. 820, 171 Cal.Rptr. 604, 623 P.2d 165, fn. omitted.) "Generally speaking, there are two judicially imposed limitations on the enforcement of adhesion contracts or provisions thereof. The first is that such a contract or provision which does not fall within the reasonable expectations of the weaker or `adhering' party will not be enforced against him. [Citations.] The second — a principle of equity applicable to all contracts generally — is that a contract or provision, even if consistent with the reasonable expectations of the parties, will be denied enforcement if, considered in its context, it is unduly oppressive or `unconscionable.' " (Ibid.) Subsequent cases have referred to both the "reasonable expectations" and the "oppressive" limitations as being aspects of unconscionability. (See A & M Produce Co. v. FMC Corp. (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 473, 486-487, 186 Cal.Rptr. 114 (A & M Produce Co.).)


I believe that such a provision is - given its de facto standard status amongst other similar contracts within this industry - clearly a reasonable expectation of the subscribing party. Do you disagree?

Do you believe that a judge would find it to be "unduly oppressive or unconscionable" to not be able to play a video game?

I feel like the relevance here is pretty shallow at best.
____________________________
Dusk Sanatore (CNJ, FSH, GSM) @ Cactuar
Dusk D'norte (MRD) @ Kujata
#124 Aug 25 2013 at 1:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*
217 posts
Ivart wrote:


Here's Page 767: We explained the judicially created doctrine of unconscionability in Scissor-Tail, supra, 28 Cal.3d 807, 171 Cal.Rptr. 604, 623 P.2d 165. Unconscionability analysis 767*767 begins with an inquiry into whether the contract is one of adhesion. (Id. at pp. 817-819, 171 Cal.Rptr. 604, 623 P.2d 165.) "The term [contract of adhesion] signifies a standardized contract, which, imposed and drafted by the party of superior bargaining strength, relegates to the subscribing party only the opportunity to adhere to the contract or reject it." (Neal v. State Farm Ins. Cos. (1961) 188 Cal.App.2d 690, 694, 10 Cal.Rptr. 781.) If the contract is adhesive, the court must then determine whether "other factors are present which, under established legal rules — legislative or judicial — operate to render it [unenforceable]." (Scissor-Tail, supra, at p. 820, 171 Cal.Rptr. 604, 623 P.2d 165, fn. omitted.) "Generally speaking, there are two judicially imposed limitations on the enforcement of adhesion contracts or provisions thereof. The first is that such a contract or provision which does not fall within the reasonable expectations of the weaker or `adhering' party will not be enforced against him. [Citations.] The second — a principle of equity applicable to all contracts generally — is that a contract or provision, even if consistent with the reasonable expectations of the parties, will be denied enforcement if, considered in its context, it is unduly oppressive or `unconscionable.' " (Ibid.) Subsequent cases have referred to both the "reasonable expectations" and the "oppressive" limitations as being aspects of unconscionability. (See A & M Produce Co. v. FMC Corp. (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 473, 486-487, 186 Cal.Rptr. 114 (A & M Produce Co.).)

Edited, Aug 25th 2013 2:46pm by Ivart



****, I knew I should have read the small print!
____________________________
Aeloriel Autumnleaf - Ultros Server

Karma Zameleons - LS
The Kraken Club - Zam Free Company

It's not the destination, it's the Journey!

#125 Aug 25 2013 at 1:10 PM Rating: Default
DuskCactuar wrote:
Ivart wrote:
Here's Page 767: We explained the judicially created doctrine of unconscionability in Scissor-Tail, supra, 28 Cal.3d 807, 171 Cal.Rptr. 604, 623 P.2d 165. Unconscionability analysis 767*767 begins with an inquiry into whether the contract is one of adhesion. (Id. at pp. 817-819, 171 Cal.Rptr. 604, 623 P.2d 165.) "The term [contract of adhesion] signifies a standardized contract, which, imposed and drafted by the party of superior bargaining strength, relegates to the subscribing party only the opportunity to adhere to the contract or reject it." (Neal v. State Farm Ins. Cos. (1961) 188 Cal.App.2d 690, 694, 10 Cal.Rptr. 781.) If the contract is adhesive, the court must then determine whether "other factors are present which, under established legal rules — legislative or judicial — operate to render it [unenforceable]." (Scissor-Tail, supra, at p. 820, 171 Cal.Rptr. 604, 623 P.2d 165, fn. omitted.) "Generally speaking, there are two judicially imposed limitations on the enforcement of adhesion contracts or provisions thereof. The first is that such a contract or provision which does not fall within the reasonable expectations of the weaker or `adhering' party will not be enforced against him. [Citations.] The second — a principle of equity applicable to all contracts generally — is that a contract or provision, even if consistent with the reasonable expectations of the parties, will be denied enforcement if, considered in its context, it is unduly oppressive or `unconscionable.' " (Ibid.) Subsequent cases have referred to both the "reasonable expectations" and the "oppressive" limitations as being aspects of unconscionability. (See A & M Produce Co. v. FMC Corp. (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 473, 486-487, 186 Cal.Rptr. 114 (A & M Produce Co.).)


I believe that such a provision is - given its de facto standard status amongst other similar contracts within this industry - clearly a reasonable expectation of the subscribing party. Do you disagree?

Do you believe that a judge would find it to be "unduly oppressive or unconscionable" to not be able to play a video game?

I feel like the relevance here is pretty shallow at best.



What this speaks to is making a contract void. The TOS is a binding contract, that does not make every clause in it valid. If a online game company made a game that expressly promised online play and never delivered online play, the customers could very well sue them and win regardless if they signed a TOS stating they would not sue. A lot of contracts have a forfeiture of right to sue most of which are invalid, this does not make the contract void, which means that everything else signed is still a valid contract just the invalid portion is ignored. A void contract nullifies the entire transaction and only arises when something unconscionable is contracted.
#126 Aug 25 2013 at 1:11 PM Rating: Default
33 posts
To be clear, I don't want to sue SE or be involved in any lawsuit. If they lurk the forums a little saber-rattling might be in order. Remember when the Fuhrer gave us 6 extra hours? Like that. I want to play the game and I'm bored waiting for the server fix, which I'm sure it will be sooner or later.

But, the unconscionablity argument would be for taking real money ($300,000 for 10,000 1.0 pre-orders, perhaps) without shipping the product, whether the product is malaria vaccines or little imaginary "internet" "things".

BTW that troll call called me a [expletive] tool. That was bad but maybe trolls are people too. Naaaah
#127 Aug 25 2013 at 1:14 PM Rating: Good
PastrySandwich wrote:
What this speaks to is making a contract void. The TOS is a binding contract, that does not make every clause in it valid. If a online game company made a game that expressly promised online play and never delivered online play, the customers could very well sue them and win regardless if they signed a TOS stating they would not sue. A lot of contracts have a forfeiture of right to sue most of which are invalid, this does not make the contract void, which means that everything else signed is still a valid contract just the invalid portion is ignored. A void contract nullifies the entire transaction and only arises when something unconscionable is contracted.


Three problems here:

1) Most people did get a chance to play
2) ToS specifically waives your right if the service is down, and you are expected to have read that agreement
3) There is no forfeiture clause in the ToS
____________________________
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/pawkeshup
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/pawkeshup
Twitch: http://www.twitch.tv/pawkeshup
Blog: http://pawkeshup.blogspot.com
Olorinus the Ludicrous wrote:
The idea of old school is way more interesting than the reality
#128 Aug 25 2013 at 1:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
***
2,675 posts
Ivart wrote:
Remember when the Fuhrer gave us 6 extra hours?


I'm fairly surprised it took this long for Godwin's law to kick in...
#130 Aug 25 2013 at 1:16 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
2,426 posts
#131 Aug 25 2013 at 1:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*
217 posts
Hairspray wrote:
I think they should provide a t-shirt that says "I survived early access"


Love that! They may have survived a piddly meteor, but we survived Early Access!!!
____________________________
Aeloriel Autumnleaf - Ultros Server

Karma Zameleons - LS
The Kraken Club - Zam Free Company

It's not the destination, it's the Journey!

1 2 3 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 82 All times are in CST
FilthMcNasty, scchan, Anonymous Guests (80)