So when does SE plan to credit our accounts for the multiple ongoing service issues?

[patriciasjoey]

Every single other service that I have ever paid for in my life would have been crediting my account long ago if there were such frequent interruptions in that service until the issue(s) were 100% resolved.

I highly doubt the validity of this statement.

I know some players are experiencing more severe interuptions than others, but I have only had minor instances.

I have definately not had such a horrible experience that I'm going to lower myself to squabble about $12.99.

Why is it that people are so quick to feel entitled to compensation, a bonus or refund?

If you're a gamer, you know stuff like this happens. This is some pettiness at this stage.

[Baingoleth]

Equifax would be a good recent example. They didn't hack themselves.

When companies fail to take appropriate security measures to protect your data and their databases are compromised exposing your personal data, you are entitled to compensation because of negligence. Square-Enix's servers were not compromised. Their ISP is having trouble with their routers being DDoSed. You appear to lack the knowledge to make sound arguments in a technical forum.

If you insist on trying to get a small amount of money back from Square-Enix, why are you not filing a support ticket and instead making uninformed comments on this forum? As other people have said, just let it go. If you can't let it go, you're wasting your time trying to rile up a bunch of people on the forums. Most of the players who use these forums are well aware of the DDoS issue and that Square-Enix is working with NTT to try and mitigate the problem. From what I've read recently, they don't agree with you that Square-Enix is liable for their ISP's network troubles.

[Baingoleth]

Our ongoing connection issues are caused by someone attacking a third party outside of SE’s control so there really isn’t anything they can do about it. We’re literally caught in the middle of a fight between the ISPs that just so happen to serve SE and whatever berk decided to DDoS them.

If anyone owes you compensation it would be the ISPs being attacked, but you seem desperate to blame SE no matter what anyone says so I don’t even know why I’m bothering.

You posters who feel the need to get back at someone for missing out on some game time, go (more?) crazy:


#
# ARIN WHOIS data and services are subject to the Terms of Use
# available at: https://www.arin.net/whois_tou.html
#
# If you see inaccuracies in the results, please report at
# https://www.arin.net/public/whoisinaccuracy/index.xhtml
#


#
# The following results may also be obtained via:
# https://whois.arin.net/rest/nets;q=1...se&ext=netref2
#

NetRange: 129.250.0.0 - 129.250.255.255
CIDR: 129.250.0.0/16
NetName: NTTA-129-250
NetHandle: NET-129-250-0-0-1
Parent: NET129 (NET-129-0-0-0-0)
NetType: Direct Allocation
OriginAS:
Organization: NTT America, Inc. (NTTAM-1)
RegDate: 1988-04-05
Updated: 2012-03-02
Comment:
Comment: Reassignment information for this block is
Comment: available at rwhois.gin.ntt.net port 4321
Ref: https://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-129-250-0-0-1


OrgName: NTT America, Inc.
OrgId: NTTAM-1
Address: 8300 E Maplewood Ave.
Address: Suite 400
City: Greenwood Village
StateProv: CO
PostalCode: 80111
Country: US
RegDate: 2005-12-08
Updated: 2017-01-28
Ref: https://whois.arin.net/rest/org/NTTAM-1

ReferralServer: rwhois://rwhois.gin.ntt.net:4321

OrgAbuseHandle: NAAC-ARIN
OrgAbuseName: NTT America Abuse Contact
OrgAbusePhone: +1-877-688-6625
OrgAbuseEmail: abuse@ntt.net
OrgAbuseRef: https://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/NAAC-ARIN

OrgTechHandle: VIPAR-ARIN
OrgTechName: VIPAR
OrgTechPhone: +1-877-688-6625
OrgTechEmail: vipar@us.ntt.net
OrgTechRef: https://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/VIPAR-ARIN

OrgNOCHandle: NASC-ARIN
OrgNOCName: NTT America Support Contact
OrgNOCPhone: +1-877-688-6625
OrgNOCEmail: support@us.ntt.net
OrgNOCRef: https://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/NASC-ARIN

RTechHandle: VIA4-ORG-ARIN
RTechName: VIPAR
RTechPhone: +1-877-688-6625
RTechEmail: vipar@us.ntt.net
RTechRef: https://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/VIA4-ORG-ARIN


#
# ARIN WHOIS data and services are subject to the Terms of Use
# available at: https://www.arin.net/whois_tou.html
#
# If you see inaccuracies in the results, please report at
# https://www.arin.net/public/whoisinaccuracy/index.xhtml
#



Found a referral to rwhois.gin.ntt.net:4321.

%rwhois V-1.5:0078b6:00 rwhois.gin.ntt.net (Vipar 0.1a. Comments to vipar@us.ntt.net)
network:Class-Name:network
network:Auth-Area:129.250.0.0/16
network:ID:NETBLK-VRIO-BB-P1.127.0.0.1/32
network:Handle:NETBLK-VRIO-BB-P1
network:Network-Name:VRIO-BB-P1
network:IP-Network:129.250.4.0/22
network:In-Addr-Server;I:AUTH21-GIN-HST.127.0.0.1/32
network:In-Addr-Server;I:AUTH22-GIN-HST.127.0.0.1/32
network:In-Addr-Server;I:AUTH23-GIN-HST.127.0.0.1/32
network:In-Addr-Server;I:AUTH24-GIN-HST.127.0.0.1/32
network:In-Addr-Server;I:AUTH25-GIN-HST.127.0.0.1/32
network:IP-Network-Block:129.250.4.0 - 129.250.7.255
network:Org-Name:NTT America, Inc.
network:Street-Address:8300 E Maplewood Ave. Suite 400
network:City:Greenwood Village
network:State:CO
network:Postal-Code:80111
network:Country-Code:US
network:Tech-Contact;I:VIA4-ORG-ARIN.127.0.0.1/32
network:Created:1999-09-14 19:28:42+00
network:Updated:2007-06-04 23:16:27+00

network:Class-Name:network
network:Auth-Area:129.250.0.0/16
network:ID:NETBLK-VRIO-BB.127.0.0.1/32
network:Handle:NETBLK-VRIO-BB
network:Network-Name:VRIO-BB
network:IP-Network:129.250.0.0/16
network:In-Addr-Server;I:AUTH21-GIN-HST.127.0.0.1/32
network:In-Addr-Server;I:AUTH22-GIN-HST.127.0.0.1/32
network:In-Addr-Server;I:AUTH23-GIN-HST.127.0.0.1/32
network:In-Addr-Server;I:AUTH24-GIN-HST.127.0.0.1/32
network:In-Addr-Server;I:AUTH25-GIN-HST.127.0.0.1/32
network:IP-Network-Block:129.250.0.0 - 129.250.255.255
network:Org-Name:NTT America, Inc.
network:Street-Address:8300 E Maplewood Ave. Suite 400
network:City:Greenwood Village
network:State:CO
network:Postal-Code:80111
network:Country-Code:US
network:Tech-Contact;I:VIA4-ORG-ARIN.127.0.0.1/32
network:Created:1999-10-08 17:01:36+00
network:Updated:2007-06-04 23:11:46+00

network:Class-Name:network
network:Auth-Area:129.250.0.0/16
network:ID:NETBLK-VRIO-BB.127.0.0.1/32
network:Handle:NETBLK-VRIO-BB
network:Network-Name:VRIO-BB
network:IP-Network:129.250.0.0/16
network:In-Addr-Server;I:AUTH21-GIN-HST.127.0.0.1/32
network:In-Addr-Server;I:AUTH22-GIN-HST.127.0.0.1/32
network:In-Addr-Server;I:AUTH23-GIN-HST.127.0.0.1/32
network:In-Addr-Server;I:AUTH24-GIN-HST.127.0.0.1/32
network:In-Addr-Server;I:AUTH25-GIN-HST.127.0.0.1/32
network:IP-Network-Block:129.250.0.0 - 129.250.255.255
network:Org-Name:NTT America, Inc.
network:Street-Address:8300 E Maplewood Ave. Suite 400
network:City:Greenwood Village
network:State:CO
network:Postal-Code:80111
network:Country-Code:US
network:Tech-Contact;I:VIA4-ORG-ARIN.127.0.0.1/32
network:Created:1999-10-08 17:01:36+00
network:Updated:2007-06-04 23:11:46+00

%ok

[ManuelBravo]

Who cares? Setting the ToU stuff aside, the ethical thing to do would be to compensate people in some way. It's a common practice and the ToU doesnt prevent SE from compensating people.

If you cant get your mind of the ToU and I join in on playing lawyer, the line i snipped would be the one i would contest. You are only speculating that SE is delivering quality and connectivity to the very best of their abilities. I would speculate that they are delivering the quality and connectivity that they can within the game's budget, which is a very different thing.

Ethical? is it unethical to harass a company for something that they warned before hand, and we as the consumer are aware can happen at any time? or is it just because today's generation need a trophy for just trying and don't want their feelings hurt? Is it also fair to request compensation for a service that uses a third party like the USPS for late deliveries when when both parties depend on the USPS? As for you comment who cares about ToU, are you really missing the whole point or just trolling? I know common sense is a dying trait in the world but really that comment takes the cake.

[ManuelBravo]

Equifax would be a good recent example. They didn't hack themselves.

Also, we are compensating SE, ie 1 victim compensating another.

Equifax was targeted directly, it was uncovered that they could of prevented and to show face to the public they offered a 1 time black web scan free of charge. Later on they were targeted yet again and the group that did it was to prove a point. There is a difference between a security breach which could have been prevented, vs a third party in between using ISP. If your going to talk about laws, ethics, and business, at the very least do some research on how everything works. IF you feel there is a violation of the Terms of Use and you deserve compensation then please show us what part of the terms is being violated that require SE to compensate. That or some kind of link to a law in regards to a type of regulation, example Financial institution has regulation E.

[Xerek]

Some people don't wanna listen. This thread is really just...

"My game time is inturrepted. I demand SE compensate us!"
"It's not really SE's fault. They're being attacked..."
"Don't care. Game time interrupted. I demand compensation."
"Yeah but, it's not the servers, if you look at these traces, you'll see..."
"DON'T CARE! GAME TIME INTERRUPTED! SE COMPENSATE ME!"
"SE's not the one responsible! Look at all the evidence proving it's not their fau..."
"DON'T CARE!!! SE COMPENSATE NOW!!!"
"*sigh*"

[Chronons]

lol at all the IT nerd rage. If you could stop violently shaking with indigence for a moment and read the base argument people are presenting, you might have no need to post the same response over and over.

You have a contract with SE to provide a service, their ISP provider issues are theirs to deal with, not yours. If they are failing to provide the service agreed upon in our contract, they are obligated to compensate or face breach of contract suit. Now, they have cleverly in-bedded in their ToS a clause that allows for them temporarily shut down service at their discretion. There are any number of contract law arguments that can be made on the consumer's behalf to combat this clause, such as their action being a violation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and that they are using this clause inappropriately.

You could (rightfully in my opinion) argue that it has yet to reach that point, or any other number of legal arguments to the contrary. But to babble on about how people dont anything about the internet and are therefore wrong shows a gross misunderstanding of the issue on your own part. I dont think SE owes us anything, but to pretend like their ToS is ironclad or that this problem could never spawn a real issue of compensation seems like foolishness to me.

[Baingoleth]

lol at all the IT nerd rage. If you could stop violently shaking with indigence for a moment and read the base argument people are presenting, you might have no need to post the same response over and over.

You have a contract with SE to provide a service, their ISP provider issues are theirs to deal with, not yours. If they are failing to provide the service agreed upon in our contract, they are obligated to compensate or face breach of contract suit. Now, they have cleverly in-bedded in their ToS a clause that allows for them temporarily shut down service at their discretion. There are any number of contract law arguments that can be made on the consumer's behalf to combat this clause, such as their action being a violation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and that they are using this clause inappropriately.

You could (rightfully in my opinion) argue that it has yet to reach that point, or any other number of legal arguments to the contrary. But to babble on about how people dont anything about the internet and are therefore wrong shows a gross misunderstanding of the issue on your own part. I dont think SE owes us anything, but to pretend like their ToS is ironclad or that this problem could never spawn a real issue of compensation seems like foolishness to me.

This IT nerd is more amazed at how people want to use the forum to lash out and demand compensation from Square-Enix. I, personally, haven't seen any justification for rage and I'd go so far as to say the people here who know networking aren't raging. They've mostly been trying to assist in figuring out what caused the interruptions and explain the cause to the rest of the players. I've seen posters looking for compensation raging though. It isn't like Square-Enix's Network Operations Centre didn't make posts in the status forum and start working with NTT for a solution as soon as they became aware of the DDoS trouble. Are the people who are looking for compensation able to get compensation from Square-Enix? Are they entitled? I'm not a lawyer; I'm a network engineer. As I have stated before, Square-Enix might feel inclined to do something for these angry players but I wouldn't count on it. In this situation, I still think a better way to go about it would be to open a support ticket rather than try to shame Square-Enix on the forums publicly. Square-Enix has been diligent in reporting the trouble to NTT and in keeping us informed. Personally, I think it's mean to try and get back at them when they didn't do anything wrong.

[winsock]

When companies fail to take appropriate security measures to protect your data and their databases are compromised exposing your personal data, you are entitled to compensation because of negligence.

How about if a company fails to take appropriate security measures to protect their service? Whether they are or aren't is speculation, but to say that have 0 ethical responsibility is a stretch.

For the sake of getting some indication as to whether or not out discussion can go anywhere:
Do you believe there is ANY circumstance in which SE should add time to consumer accounts due to the quality of service. For example, if the DDoS attacks made the game unplayable for the full month of your sub, would you feel like SE should compensate you in some way? After all, their service didn't provide any value to you.

[silverlunarfox]

How about if a company fails to take appropriate security measures to protect their service? Whether they are or aren't is speculation, but to say that have 0 ethical responsibility is a stretch.

For the sake of getting some indication as to whether or not out discussion can go anywhere:
Do you believe there is ANY circumstance in which SE should add time to consumer accounts due to the quality of service. For example, if the DDoS attacks made the game unplayable for the full month of your sub, would you feel like SE should compensate you in some way? After all, their service didn't provide any value to you.

But they are taking appropriate measures. Protections against DDoS arent fool proof.

I think the only time compensation is due is when you literally cannot access their servers due to server shutdown longer than 24 hours. That seems to be the norm with most companies that don't have to compensate but choose too.

The game is not unplayable, you can still access it. Yes the lag/d-c happens, but the service is still up and available.

I am a gamer in general. I remember a couple years ago when lizardsquad decided to take down both xblive and psn......xblive (3 days) and psn (~5 days) both offered days compensation since you could not access it the whole of the holiday it was down. That makes sense.

DDoS attacks are just the name of the game now and it affects multiple games. Not just FFXIV. FFXIV was not the only game affected this last round of DDoS. So no, I do not believe it requires compensation.