Requesting a free month. Please?

[IttyBitty]

Corporations aren't your friends, kids. You owe them no loyalty whatsoever. Extract whatever you can from them, because they're more than willing to do the same to you.

[Xtrasweettea]

snip

You are absolutely correct that SE has already gone through the steps on getting compensation for SE being inconvenienced. SE will get paid.

Though, I wouldn't state you should feel dumb about not asking for the same as an SE client. You are not being dumb. There's something we don't consider when we sign up to the games: the costs for anything beyond running the game and support for the customers.

The issue comes down to this: "How much are you willing to pay to play?"
Let's say that SE's TOS now includes a service level agreement (SLA) that whenever the ISP fails we get compensated. So in order to get this SLA, SE will need to need to higher a service management team to:
1. Track SLA violations
2. Root Cause Analysis for when there is something like DDOS attack to determine if the ISP is at fault and we can be compensated.
3. Calculate SLA credits and raise to the billing system to credit our next month's bill
4. track and report to us what SLA credits have been given to us.

Our sub will jump up in price in order to cover the cost of that team and to pay extra for the SLA risk. We could be going from $14 a month to $50 a month.

So, that is the tradeoff we get: higher monthly price to include an SLA, or a lower sub without an SLA but we get no direct recourse for ISP failure.

[Zombiee]

This is strange cause in Australia we have laws that protect people from failure of service from companies. If the company does nothing to compensate you can sue for them failing to provide a service you paid for.

[Xtrasweettea]

We are the final customers. They have problems with the provider? Pay for another one, fix the scripts, change the roots? In the end the problem is there, in the game and SE is the one that provide that lagging game to us.

SE has to do that. SE has to push for the ISP to change or the ISP will have to pay them. That’s what is probably outlined within their contract.
SE probably doesn’t have a choice on the ISP either. If Comcast is the only provider in the area, they are stuck with Comcast. They could try to pay another ISP to use Comcast lines, but that ISP will have to pass those extra line rental costs to SE, will increase the price, which could trickle down to us as end users.

Fortunately a TOS can be changed in high places, specially for moments like this. In legal means, we all agreed to that. Like I said earlier, doesnt mean we can't argue and complain about it.

I didn’t state you cannot complain about it. I stated you will probably get nothing from SE due to what you have agreed to.

You are right, changing the TOS can happen. This DDOS attack might not cause the TOS to change by itself but can be used with in conjunction other problems to force the TOS to change. Of course, SE must feel it is worth it to do so.

And in the real world, when my fridge is not working properly when I got it delivered, it gets replaced or refunded, period.

And in that same real world, you have a warranty and agreement from the facility that you purchased the fridge from and a warranty from the company that manufactured the fridge itself that clearly outlines what you are entitled to for compensation for when their product and service fails.

Then why are you even replying?

Why are you even replying when you should be calling SE customer service to complain and try to see if they will compensate you for your inconvenience.
Or is complaining on the forums all you are willing to do?

[Xtrasweettea]

This is strange cause in Australia we have laws that protect people from failure of service from companies. If the company does nothing to compensate you can sue for them failing to provide a service you paid for.

Technically, SE isn't failing to provide the service, the ISP is failing to provide the service to SE. Now if that Australian law is broad enough to allow SE to fall under that umbrella which could mean that SE might have failed to provide a service, then yeah, I can see SE needing to pay the end user. Counts on how the law was written and if there is any precedent under Australian law.

[Zombiee]

SE are providing the service even though another company may be contracted. They still bare the responsibility for it and would then need to sue the company they contracted if the company doesnt offer them compensation.
It all falls under 'consumer rights' so no ToS can block it. This is how things are in over here anyway.

[MonsieurMoodle]

Why are you even replying when you should be calling SE customer service to complain and try to see if they will compensate you for your inconvenience.
Or is complaining on the forums all you are willing to do?

Should I mentionned a few topics, with Square replying to them? Making some noise is always better than getting along with the "TOS cause you agreed for that". Your choice for being passive, not mine. And no, complaining on the forums is not ALL I'm willing to do. I'm willing to play, for something I actually pay for.

[Xtrasweettea]

SE are providing the service even though another company may be contracted. They still bare the responsibility for it and would then need to sue the company they contracted if the company doesnt offer them compensation.

Right. Though they necessarily don't have to sue if they have contracts. Usually the statement of work and the service level agreements within the contract will outline who can be compensated for what. Now, if the failing party doesn't bother to do what is outlined within the contract, then civil suits could be the best option.

I know that the ISP company work for at times partners or be "back-to-back" with other companies that help cover lacking service. If the ISP I work for fails to provide service, the "partner" also fails to provide service.

[Xtrasweettea]

Should I mentionned a few topics, with Square replying to them? Making some noise is always better than getting along with the "TOS cause you agreed for that". Your choice for being passive, not mine.

Make all the noise you want. Though I keep telling you how to make the most impact. Complaining on the forums does next to nothing, really. Calling and writing directly to the company is what gives the most impact.

Those topics are something SE can directly control. Graphics, bugs, job change, etc. SE owns all of that. SE doesn't have direct control over this. So them likely to respond AND compensate you is tiny going the forum route alone.

Go and call customer service about you not being able to enjoy the game because of the DDOS attacks. Actually use your voice for this. Having a real life voice behind the complaint is more impactful than just typing words.

If you don't call and complain, and only respond to me, then you are just as passive as I am.

[Rymm]

Should I mentionned a few topics, with Square replying to them? Making some noise is always better than getting along with the "TOS cause you agreed for that".

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the forum Moderators have any influence on SE's policy writers. Or hell, even have a direct line of communication to said policy writers. Hate to burst your bubble but, they don't.

If you raise enough of a stink on the forums, the Mods might pass a memo along to their supervisors who then might pass it up their internal chain of command where it could, in theory, eventually make it's way to the head office in a couple of months. Now, to be fair, customer service complaints are generally handled the same way, but I would assume that the process is somewhat more streamlined on that end given that it is the established channel of communication between the customers and SE.