Reply
Survivor
Registered: 01/21/2014
Offline
2035 posts
 

Re: PS+ Compensation When Unable To Use The PSN?

Aug 27, 2014

Black0Panther wrote:

Spoiler
Blockhead_Brown wrote:

SHANE523 wrote:

Spoiler

Blockhead_Brown wrote:

SHANE523 wrote:

Spoiler
Blockhead_Brown wrote:
For the people who are defending Sony i have a question. Why are you defending them?

Step back for a minute and think this through. If plym is wrong then he's just wasting his time. If its a waste of his time, then constantly coming back to counter him is a waste of your time. You don't even need to say another word. You could silently let this post go to oblivion and it wouldn't change anything. Is it really necessary to have the final word? If you truly believe the way you do then let the guy have the final word and just know that you were right so it doesn't matter. (You're not changing his mind and he's not changing yours so please let it go)

On the other hand, if plym is correct then all you are doing is getting in his way of making positive change for the consumer. Why not step aside, wish the man luck and see what happens? He's doing all the work and if successful you get the benefits. If he, despite your opinions, managed to get Sony to change their TOS policy to state that they guarantee the consumers xx% of uptime a month and if they fail to meet it then they will compensate the consumers will that hurt your feelings? Will you cry out "no Sony, I don't want a guarantee. I want to blindly trust you'll compensate if down for weeks and I don't want to be compensated if you're only down for a day. Please change the TOS back to how you had it!"? Or will you accept the change as a positive for yourself and move on?

Really, no matter how you look at it there is no more point in arguing against him on it. Pride and stubbornness is the only reason left to argue. If you're tired of posts like this then stop reading it and stop responding to it causing it to remain on page 1.

 


We are not "defending" Sony. This is common sense.

What business does what he is asking? And why do you think the wording is the way it is?

There are things out of ALL organizations control  that have this kind of service and they word the TOS to protect themselves. They have to! IF they didn't they would have people suing just to sue, you have to understand that.

 

Look at what he is claiming. You don't think that if he had the opportunity he wouldn't be jumping on that bandwagon to get something even though he really didn't deserve it?

 

And also remember Sony DID add on the extra time to all PS+ users for that down time in the past. So IF an incident of that magnitude or of significant magnitude happened I am confident they would do the same.


My business does this. I design and build utility scale solar systems. I try to avoid it, but on occasion I have to put in the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) (think of it as a TOS) that I guarantee my system will produce at least 90% of the power that was projected for the system. If the system produces less than 90% I am required to pay the purchaser of power a set amount per kwh under 90% not provided. So for me I have to make extra sure that my calculations are accurate and that the assumptions I used to estimate my power output are reasonable. If the location I build the system experiences an abnormally large amount of cloudy days during the summer months I am going to be sweating it a bit.

 

Trust me if I could I would NEVER put that in my contracts. It's a huge risk for me. Still it gets put in there because the companies that sign that PPA have a lot of leverage. It's in their best interest for it to be in there and I have to consider them as much as I consider myself. Sometimes that stipulation is the difference between getting the contract and not getting it.

 

For Sony the answer, as of now, is a bit easier. They write the contract the way they like, the way that benefits them the most and if any individual customer doesnt like it they simply dont get to purchase the item. Sony holds all the power so of course they are going to write the TOS to best benefit themselves. The TOS as is does not benefit the consumers and this is what I believe the OP wishes to see happen. The TOS could be written to better benefit the consumers and their is no reason that Sony can't carry a part of the burden instead of offloading it ALL on the consumers. If we banded together and demanded with one voice (verbally or with our wallets) that they change the TOS it could happen. Sony could bear a reasonable amount of burden  when it comes to guaranteeing a set % of monthly uptime. Obviously they don't want to, but they could and if we pressured enough they would.

 

I know there are all sorts of additional talking points (DDoS, maintenance, what is a reasonable uptime %, who decides, Force Majeure, past history shows they will compensate if the outage is big enough, etc. etc.) but I'd rather not get into any of them until/unless everyone defending Sony (and yes you are defending Sony, there is nothing wrong with that) can acknowledge that the topic at hand is about a general sense of wanting the ToS altered to better benefit the consumers and that all debate should be directed at seeing if this is doable/reasonable instead of just trying to shut it down.

 

If everyone wants to continue to j

 

ust shut it down then I see 300 posts worth of reason to disengage from the discussion.


Sorry cannot read the green on the white.

 

You put in a %, that is what business class ISPs do and I referenced that. Even at 99% uptime that is allowing a little over 3.5 days a year and 7 hours a month of downtime.

We are also talking about a specific topic of downtime in the TOS, downtime of a service being provided.

So in your PPA are you held responsible if there is no sunlight for 30 days and the solar system that you installed/sold doesn't provide any power? I do not know how you word it but the way I would understand your comments is that the 90% is understood as when the system is up and running, correct? So what if the system is "down" due to no sun, no fault of your own or equipment? I am sure you have something in there to protect yourself, right?


Sorry, I will write in normal color.

 

How it basically works: I determine the system size I'm building (let's say 10MW AC system). I calculate how much power it should produce in a year based on the sytems location, tilt etc and a pvwatts output. The result is what I am telling the company they can expect my system to produce for them for the year. The actual output will not be exactly as predicted since pvwatts is a prediction based on past weather history in that area. If the weather is cloudier this year than in the past i can expect the output to be less than projected. If I did my job well and weather patterns dont drastically alter then my calculations should be spot on +/- a few %. ... well within the 90% limit.

 

If weather does not cooperate, or an O&M guy shuts the system down for inspection and forgets to turn it back on and I don't notice it for a few weeks, or an inverter blows and I have nothing in place to replace it quickly, or any other of  a handful of reason cause the system to not perorm as expected then that's on me. It comes out of my pocket.

 

The exception to this is Force Majeure, since it is written into the contract. If a plane crashes on my site or a nearby fire burns it down or some other act of God happens then I am not responsible. This Force Majeure in my mind is similar to DDoS attacks to Sony. Of course it would depend on how it is written in the ToS IF it were to be rewritten.

 

 


in your TOS you chose the 90%. Sony TOS doesnt state any time at all. So the situation is handled quite differently.


I did not choose 90%. I compromised 90%. And I only compromised because both parties in the contract negotiations had enough power to keep the other side from getting everything their way.

 

Sony doesnt compromise because consumers when acting like individuals dont have the power to force compromise. IF enough individuals band together and ignore people like you they could gain enough power to force Sony to compromise.

 


Black0Panther wrote:

Blockhead_Brown wrote:
$24 billion... Get real

On May 23 Sony stated that the outage costs were $171 million.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_Network_outage

Not all Wikipedia info is good. Those sights are made by people like you and I there s been millions of mistakes found on those pages already al over the place. Nothing there is real fact.


Not all Wikipedia info is bad. Wikipedia is a fairly reliabe source for info. It's wise to do a "does that make sense" check and to cross check anything that seems suspicious, but it's ludicrious to outright ignore all info on wiki.  Your attempt to discredit my stance was lame.

 

 

You're not even trying to consider a possibility of changing the ToS and whether it makes sense or could work. You are outright dismissing it before considering it. That is not a sign of an intelligent mind. As far as I'm concerned I'll take that 300 post reason to disengage from further conversation with you.

Message 321 of 883 (206 Views)
Platinum
Registered: 12/21/2007
Offline
56286 posts
 

Re: PS+ Compensation When Unable To Use The PSN?

[ Edited ]
Aug 27, 2014

Blockhead_Brown wrote:
For the people who are defending Sony i have a question. Why are you defending them?

Step back for a minute and think this through. If plym is wrong then he's just wasting his time. If its a waste of his time, then constantly coming back to counter him is a waste of your time. You don't even need to say another word. You could silently let this post go to oblivion and it wouldn't change anything. Is it really necessary to have the final word? If you truly believe the way you do then let the guy have the final word and just know that you were right so it doesn't matter. (You're not changing his mind and he's not changing yours so please let it go)

On the other hand, if plym is correct then all you are doing is getting in his way of making positive change for the consumer. Why not step aside, wish the man luck and see what happens? He's doing all the work and if successful you get the benefits. If he, despite your opinions, managed to get Sony to change their TOS policy to state that they guarantee the consumers xx% of uptime a month and if they fail to meet it then they will compensate the consumers will that hurt your feelings? Will you cry out "no Sony, I don't want a guarantee. I want to blindly trust you'll compensate if down for weeks and I don't want to be compensated if you're only down for a day. Please change the TOS back to how you had it!"? Or will you accept the change as a positive for yourself and move on?

Really, no matter how you look at it there is no more point in arguing against him on it. Pride and stubbornness is the only reason left to argue. If you're tired of posts like this then stop reading it and stop responding to it causing it to remain on page 1.

 

I can't even tell if you agree with me or not from this post but it is one of the best posts in the past month in this thread.  Thank you for showing everyone common sense in a respectful way!  

 

For some reason the line "lead, follow, or get out of the way" keeps rattling around in my head right now Smiley Wink.

 

 

Message 322 of 883 (202 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Platinum
Registered: 12/21/2007
Offline
56286 posts
 

Re: PS+ Compensation When Unable To Use The PSN?

Aug 27, 2014

SHANE523 wrote:

Blockhead_Brown wrote:

 


I preemptively answered your first paragraph in my last post. lol

 

I'm not in total disagreement with you. My ISP downtime is my problem. DDoS attacks are Force Majeure IMO. Individuals not getting access for 15 minutes due to full servers when others do have access (how could you tell who did vs who didnt have access?) are all valid reasons for Sony not to compensate.

 

I'm trying to look at it from a simple pov first then getting more complex. At the simplest if Sony guaranteed 93%  uptime a month (2 days worth of downtime a month) would this be reasonable? If everything that prevents access is considered "downtime" then no.

 

Ok, so then what should be considered downtime? IMO it should be maintenance and any time that Sony's servers are fully offline for any reason except for DDoS attacks and  power outages out of their control (aka the utilities are experiencing a black out). You can write the Tos To specifically state what would constitute reasonable downtime that Sony is responsible for and what kind of events that cause downtime that Sony is not responsible for.

 

I would like to see Sony set a reasonable uptime % and state what particular events they are responsible for when downtime occurs. Icing on the cake would be for them to establish a 3rd party to monitor it, but if they only did the first two, personally, I would trust them to monitor themselves and hold themselves accountable for the sake of the consumer base.

 

It's not like we dont see in the news and other internet outlets every time Sony does experience actual downtime. And it's not like we dont see the real reason for it eventually.

 

 


I saw that after I posted LOL.

 

IF the PSN was down due to Sony, faulty equipment or some reason they pulled the plug then absolutely. I have stated this in the past. My problem with the OP is that he is unreasonable in what he is asking for. Like I said at 99% there is still 3.5 days of downtime over a year. He wants to be compensated if it was 6 hours and caused by an entity that is outside of Sony's control. I do not agree. IF someone was smart enough they would keep running a DDoS when they were at work, unable to connect to the PSN anyway, just to extend their PS+ subscription. LOL

 

A day and half of maintenance, fine. 1-12 hours because of a DDoS? No.


I'm not asking for 1-2 hours...again please read what I typed and tell me what part of this is unreasonable to you so I can understand your angst.

 

 


PLYMCO_PILGRIM wrote:

 

As consumers who own a PS4 we have to pre-pay for access to the PSN to play online games.  If the PSN goes down unannounced (maintenance is announced), on Sony's end (for example a ddos attack), then Sony should extend the Pre-paid PSN access time to those consumers.  

 

I also specified times.   If the PSN is down for 12 hours or less then Sony does not have to compensate.  It would then be done in 12 hour incriments.  12:00 -  23:59 would be a 12 hour credit,  24:00-35:59 would be a 24 hour credit, 36:00 - 47:59 would be a 36 hour credit.

 

 


 

Message 323 of 883 (201 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Ghost of Sparta
Registered: 04/05/2003
Offline
13294 posts
 

Re: PS+ Compensation When Unable To Use The PSN?

Aug 27, 2014

Blockhead_Brown wrote:

Black0Panther wrote:

Spoiler
Blockhead_Brown wrote:

SHANE523 wrote:

Spoiler

Blockhead_Brown wrote:

SHANE523 wrote:

Spoiler
Blockhead_Brown wrote:
For the people who are defending Sony i have a question. Why are you defending them?

Step back for a minute and think this through. If plym is wrong then he's just wasting his time. If its a waste of his time, then constantly coming back to counter him is a waste of your time. You don't even need to say another word. You could silently let this post go to oblivion and it wouldn't change anything. Is it really necessary to have the final word? If you truly believe the way you do then let the guy have the final word and just know that you were right so it doesn't matter. (You're not changing his mind and he's not changing yours so please let it go)

On the other hand, if plym is correct then all you are doing is getting in his way of making positive change for the consumer. Why not step aside, wish the man luck and see what happens? He's doing all the work and if successful you get the benefits. If he, despite your opinions, managed to get Sony to change their TOS policy to state that they guarantee the consumers xx% of uptime a month and if they fail to meet it then they will compensate the consumers will that hurt your feelings? Will you cry out "no Sony, I don't want a guarantee. I want to blindly trust you'll compensate if down for weeks and I don't want to be compensated if you're only down for a day. Please change the TOS back to how you had it!"? Or will you accept the change as a positive for yourself and move on?

Really, no matter how you look at it there is no more point in arguing against him on it. Pride and stubbornness is the only reason left to argue. If you're tired of posts like this then stop reading it and stop responding to it causing it to remain on page 1.

 


We are not "defending" Sony. This is common sense.

What business does what he is asking? And why do you think the wording is the way it is?

There are things out of ALL organizations control  that have this kind of service and they word the TOS to protect themselves. They have to! IF they didn't they would have people suing just to sue, you have to understand that.

 

Look at what he is claiming. You don't think that if he had the opportunity he wouldn't be jumping on that bandwagon to get something even though he really didn't deserve it?

 

And also remember Sony DID add on the extra time to all PS+ users for that down time in the past. So IF an incident of that magnitude or of significant magnitude happened I am confident they would do the same.


My business does this. I design and build utility scale solar systems. I try to avoid it, but on occasion I have to put in the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) (think of it as a TOS) that I guarantee my system will produce at least 90% of the power that was projected for the system. If the system produces less than 90% I am required to pay the purchaser of power a set amount per kwh under 90% not provided. So for me I have to make extra sure that my calculations are accurate and that the assumptions I used to estimate my power output are reasonable. If the location I build the system experiences an abnormally large amount of cloudy days during the summer months I am going to be sweating it a bit.

 

Trust me if I could I would NEVER put that in my contracts. It's a huge risk for me. Still it gets put in there because the companies that sign that PPA have a lot of leverage. It's in their best interest for it to be in there and I have to consider them as much as I consider myself. Sometimes that stipulation is the difference between getting the contract and not getting it.

 

For Sony the answer, as of now, is a bit easier. They write the contract the way they like, the way that benefits them the most and if any individual customer doesnt like it they simply dont get to purchase the item. Sony holds all the power so of course they are going to write the TOS to best benefit themselves. The TOS as is does not benefit the consumers and this is what I believe the OP wishes to see happen. The TOS could be written to better benefit the consumers and their is no reason that Sony can't carry a part of the burden instead of offloading it ALL on the consumers. If we banded together and demanded with one voice (verbally or with our wallets) that they change the TOS it could happen. Sony could bear a reasonable amount of burden  when it comes to guaranteeing a set % of monthly uptime. Obviously they don't want to, but they could and if we pressured enough they would.

 

I know there are all sorts of additional talking points (DDoS, maintenance, what is a reasonable uptime %, who decides, Force Majeure, past history shows they will compensate if the outage is big enough, etc. etc.) but I'd rather not get into any of them until/unless everyone defending Sony (and yes you are defending Sony, there is nothing wrong with that) can acknowledge that the topic at hand is about a general sense of wanting the ToS altered to better benefit the consumers and that all debate should be directed at seeing if this is doable/reasonable instead of just trying to shut it down.

 

If everyone wants to continue to j

 

ust shut it down then I see 300 posts worth of reason to disengage from the discussion.


Sorry cannot read the green on the white.

 

You put in a %, that is what business class ISPs do and I referenced that. Even at 99% uptime that is allowing a little over 3.5 days a year and 7 hours a month of downtime.

We are also talking about a specific topic of downtime in the TOS, downtime of a service being provided.

So in your PPA are you held responsible if there is no sunlight for 30 days and the solar system that you installed/sold doesn't provide any power? I do not know how you word it but the way I would understand your comments is that the 90% is understood as when the system is up and running, correct? So what if the system is "down" due to no sun, no fault of your own or equipment? I am sure you have something in there to protect yourself, right?


Sorry, I will write in normal color.

 

How it basically works: I determine the system size I'm building (let's say 10MW AC system). I calculate how much power it should produce in a year based on the sytems location, tilt etc and a pvwatts output. The result is what I am telling the company they can expect my system to produce for them for the year. The actual output will not be exactly as predicted since pvwatts is a prediction based on past weather history in that area. If the weather is cloudier this year than in the past i can expect the output to be less than projected. If I did my job well and weather patterns dont drastically alter then my calculations should be spot on +/- a few %. ... well within the 90% limit.

 

If weather does not cooperate, or an O&M guy shuts the system down for inspection and forgets to turn it back on and I don't notice it for a few weeks, or an inverter blows and I have nothing in place to replace it quickly, or any other of  a handful of reason cause the system to not perorm as expected then that's on me. It comes out of my pocket.

 

The exception to this is Force Majeure, since it is written into the contract. If a plane crashes on my site or a nearby fire burns it down or some other act of God happens then I am not responsible. This Force Majeure in my mind is similar to DDoS attacks to Sony. Of course it would depend on how it is written in the ToS IF it were to be rewritten.

 

 


in your TOS you chose the 90%. Sony TOS doesnt state any time at all. So the situation is handled quite differently.


I did not choose 90%. I compromised 90%. And I only compromised because both parties in the contract negotiations had enough power to keep the other side from getting everything their way.

 

Sony doesnt compromise because consumers when acting like individuals dont have the power to force compromise. IF enough individuals band together and ignore people like you they could gain enough power to force Sony to compromise.

 


Black0Panther wrote:

Blockhead_Brown wrote:
$24 billion... Get real

On May 23 Sony stated that the outage costs were $171 million.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_Network_outage

Not all Wikipedia info is good. Those sights are made by people like you and I there s been millions of mistakes found on those pages already al over the place. Nothing there is real fact.


Not all Wikipedia info is bad. Wikipedia is a fairly reliabe source for info. It's wise to do a "does that make sense" check and to cross check anything that seems suspicious, but it's ludicrious to outright ignore all info on wiki.  Your attempt to discredit my stance was lame.

 

 

You're not even trying to consider a possibility of changing the ToS and whether it makes sense or could work. You are outright dismissing it before considering it. That is not a sign of an intelligent mind. As far as I'm concerned I'll take that 300 post reason to disengage from further conversation with you.


i dont ignore it by an means i just said and its well known it has many mistakes in its library.

Message 324 of 883 (198 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 01/24/2004
Online
7612 posts
 

Re: PS+ Compensation When Unable To Use The PSN?

Aug 27, 2014

PLYMCO_PILGRIM wrote:

SHANE523 wrote:

Blockhead_Brown wrote:

 


I preemptively answered your first paragraph in my last post. lol

 

I'm not in total disagreement with you. My ISP downtime is my problem. DDoS attacks are Force Majeure IMO. Individuals not getting access for 15 minutes due to full servers when others do have access (how could you tell who did vs who didnt have access?) are all valid reasons for Sony not to compensate.

 

I'm trying to look at it from a simple pov first then getting more complex. At the simplest if Sony guaranteed 93%  uptime a month (2 days worth of downtime a month) would this be reasonable? If everything that prevents access is considered "downtime" then no.

 

Ok, so then what should be considered downtime? IMO it should be maintenance and any time that Sony's servers are fully offline for any reason except for DDoS attacks and  power outages out of their control (aka the utilities are experiencing a black out). You can write the Tos To specifically state what would constitute reasonable downtime that Sony is responsible for and what kind of events that cause downtime that Sony is not responsible for.

 

I would like to see Sony set a reasonable uptime % and state what particular events they are responsible for when downtime occurs. Icing on the cake would be for them to establish a 3rd party to monitor it, but if they only did the first two, personally, I would trust them to monitor themselves and hold themselves accountable for the sake of the consumer base.

 

It's not like we dont see in the news and other internet outlets every time Sony does experience actual downtime. And it's not like we dont see the real reason for it eventually.

 

 


I saw that after I posted LOL.

 

IF the PSN was down due to Sony, faulty equipment or some reason they pulled the plug then absolutely. I have stated this in the past. My problem with the OP is that he is unreasonable in what he is asking for. Like I said at 99% there is still 3.5 days of downtime over a year. He wants to be compensated if it was 6 hours and caused by an entity that is outside of Sony's control. I do not agree. IF someone was smart enough they would keep running a DDoS when they were at work, unable to connect to the PSN anyway, just to extend their PS+ subscription. LOL

 

A day and half of maintenance, fine. 1-12 hours because of a DDoS? No.


I'm not asking for 1-2 hours...again please read what I typed and tell me what part of this is unreasonable to you so I can understand your angst.

 

 


Before YOU tell someone to read something again, maybe you should do the same before trying to be a smartarse when you clearly didn't read something correctly.

PSXBGamer- wrote:
"2000-2016 still in the year 2000 i didnt know we was in the year 3000"


http://community.us.playstation.com/t5/PlayStation-General/Does-it-bother-you-that-Sony-brags-about-how-well-they-re-doing/td-p/45935146/page/12


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRTN97XEASQ
Message 325 of 883 (195 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Ghost of Sparta
Registered: 04/05/2003
Offline
13294 posts
 

Re: PS+ Compensation When Unable To Use The PSN?

Aug 27, 2014

PLYMCO_PILGRIM wrote:

SHANE523 wrote:

Blockhead_Brown wrote:

 


I preemptively answered your first paragraph in my last post. lol

 

I'm not in total disagreement with you. My ISP downtime is my problem. DDoS attacks are Force Majeure IMO. Individuals not getting access for 15 minutes due to full servers when others do have access (how could you tell who did vs who didnt have access?) are all valid reasons for Sony not to compensate.

 

I'm trying to look at it from a simple pov first then getting more complex. At the simplest if Sony guaranteed 93%  uptime a month (2 days worth of downtime a month) would this be reasonable? If everything that prevents access is considered "downtime" then no.

 

Ok, so then what should be considered downtime? IMO it should be maintenance and any time that Sony's servers are fully offline for any reason except for DDoS attacks and  power outages out of their control (aka the utilities are experiencing a black out). You can write the Tos To specifically state what would constitute reasonable downtime that Sony is responsible for and what kind of events that cause downtime that Sony is not responsible for.

 

I would like to see Sony set a reasonable uptime % and state what particular events they are responsible for when downtime occurs. Icing on the cake would be for them to establish a 3rd party to monitor it, but if they only did the first two, personally, I would trust them to monitor themselves and hold themselves accountable for the sake of the consumer base.

 

It's not like we dont see in the news and other internet outlets every time Sony does experience actual downtime. And it's not like we dont see the real reason for it eventually.

 

 


I saw that after I posted LOL.

 

IF the PSN was down due to Sony, faulty equipment or some reason they pulled the plug then absolutely. I have stated this in the past. My problem with the OP is that he is unreasonable in what he is asking for. Like I said at 99% there is still 3.5 days of downtime over a year. He wants to be compensated if it was 6 hours and caused by an entity that is outside of Sony's control. I do not agree. IF someone was smart enough they would keep running a DDoS when they were at work, unable to connect to the PSN anyway, just to extend their PS+ subscription. LOL

 

A day and half of maintenance, fine. 1-12 hours because of a DDoS? No.


I'm not asking for 1-2 hours...again please read what I typed and tell me what part of this is unreasonable to you so I can understand your angst.

 

 


PLYMCO_PILGRIM wrote:

 

As consumers who own a PS4 we have to pre-pay for access to the PSN to play online games.  If the PSN goes down unannounced (maintenance is announced), on Sony's end (for example a ddos attack), then Sony should extend the Pre-paid PSN access time to those consumers.  

 

I also specified times.   If the PSN is down for 12 hours or less then Sony does not have to compensate.  It would then be done in 12 hour incriments.  12:00 -  23:59 would be a 12 hour credit,  24:00-35:59 would be a 24 hour credit, 36:00 - 47:59 would be a 36 hour credit.

 

 


 


As stated we pay for pure acess not time. Its not like a cell phone where you are buying minutes.  You are not buying 100 minutes to play on line here. you are paying for a year access rights to this.  Ounce callander year is over you are done. No matter what happens. You are not buying it like time for your phone. Also as said acts of god or uncontrolled events are not covered by any service provider. Some may do it to be nice but if you read there agreement it will say they are not. Again i agree if  PSN went down again due to maintenance or a janitor tripping over a cord and unplugging something on PSN. But for it to be attacked by a third part with a DDOS attack tht they could stop. Sony owes you nothing. Just like an earthquake knocking out the servers. Uncontrold event no one but god himself could stop.

Message 326 of 883 (193 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Platinum
Registered: 12/21/2007
Offline
56286 posts
 

Re: PS+ Compensation When Unable To Use The PSN?

[ Edited ]
Aug 28, 2014

Black0Panther wrote:

PLYMCO_PILGRIM wrote:

Spoiler

SHANE523 wrote:

Blockhead_Brown wrote:

 


I preemptively answered your first paragraph in my last post. lol

 

I'm not in total disagreement with you. My ISP downtime is my problem. DDoS attacks are Force Majeure IMO. Individuals not getting access for 15 minutes due to full servers when others do have access (how could you tell who did vs who didnt have access?) are all valid reasons for Sony not to compensate.

 

I'm trying to look at it from a simple pov first then getting more complex. At the simplest if Sony guaranteed 93%  uptime a month (2 days worth of downtime a month) would this be reasonable? If everything that prevents access is considered "downtime" then no.

 

Ok, so then what should be considered downtime? IMO it should be maintenance and any time that Sony's servers are fully offline for any reason except for DDoS attacks and  power outages out of their control (aka the utilities are experiencing a black out). You can write the Tos To specifically state what would constitute reasonable downtime that Sony is responsible for and what kind of events that cause downtime that Sony is not responsible for.

 

I would like to see Sony set a reasonable uptime % and state what particular events they are responsible for when downtime occurs. Icing on the cake would be for them to establish a 3rd party to monitor it, but if they only did the first two, personally, I would trust them to monitor themselves and hold themselves accountable for the sake of the consumer base.

 

It's not like we dont see in the news and other internet outlets every time Sony does experience actual downtime. And it's not like we dont see the real reason for it eventually.

 

 


I saw that after I posted LOL.

 

IF the PSN was down due to Sony, faulty equipment or some reason they pulled the plug then absolutely. I have stated this in the past. My problem with the OP is that he is unreasonable in what he is asking for. Like I said at 99% there is still 3.5 days of downtime over a year. He wants to be compensated if it was 6 hours and caused by an entity that is outside of Sony's control. I do not agree. IF someone was smart enough they would keep running a DDoS when they were at work, unable to connect to the PSN anyway, just to extend their PS+ subscription. LOL

 

A day and half of maintenance, fine. 1-12 hours because of a DDoS? No.


I'm not asking for 1-2 hours...

 

again please read what I typed and tell me what part of this is unreasonable to you so I can understand your angst.

 

 


PLYMCO_PILGRIM wrote:

 

As consumers who own a PS4 we have to pre-pay for access to the PSN to play online games.  If the PSN goes down unannounced (maintenance is announced), on Sony's end (for example a ddos attack), then Sony should extend the Pre-paid PSN access time to those consumers.  

 

I also specified times.   If the PSN is down for 12 hours or less then Sony does not have to compensate.  It would then be done in 12 hour incriments.  12:00 -  23:59 would be a 12 hour credit,  24:00-35:59 would be a 24 hour credit, 36:00 - 47:59 would be a 36 hour credit.

 

 


 


As stated we pay for pure acess not time. Its not like a cell phone where you are buying minutes.  You are not buying 100 minutes to play on line here. you are paying for a year access rights to this.  Ounce callander year is over you are done. No matter what happens. You are not buying it like time for your phone. Also as said acts of god or uncontrolled events are not covered by any service provider. Some may do it to be nice but if you read there agreement it will say they are not. Again i agree if  PSN went down again due to maintenance or a janitor tripping over a cord and unplugging something on PSN. But for it to be attacked by a third part with a DDOS attack tht they could stop. Sony owes you nothing. Just like an earthquake knocking out the servers. Uncontrold event no one but god himself could stop.


I pay for PSN access on my PS4 based on time.  They sell PS+ (which you must buy to play games like BF4 or Destiny's PvP online) in timed incriments.   I bought 365 days of PSN access via my PS+ subscription.  Sony tracks this subscription right on your console based on time.  

 

IMG_0031.jpg

Message 327 of 883 (178 Views)
Ghost of Sparta
Registered: 04/05/2003
Offline
13294 posts
 

Re: PS+ Compensation When Unable To Use The PSN?

[ Edited ]
Aug 28, 2014

PLYMCO_PILGRIM wrote:

Black0Panther wrote:

PLYMCO_PILGRIM wrote:

Spoiler

SHANE523 wrote:

Blockhead_Brown wrote:

 


I preemptively answered your first paragraph in my last post. lol

 

I'm not in total disagreement with you. My ISP downtime is my problem. DDoS attacks are Force Majeure IMO. Individuals not getting access for 15 minutes due to full servers when others do have access (how could you tell who did vs who didnt have access?) are all valid reasons for Sony not to compensate.

 

I'm trying to look at it from a simple pov first then getting more complex. At the simplest if Sony guaranteed 93%  uptime a month (2 days worth of downtime a month) would this be reasonable? If everything that prevents access is considered "downtime" then no.

 

Ok, so then what should be considered downtime? IMO it should be maintenance and any time that Sony's servers are fully offline for any reason except for DDoS attacks and  power outages out of their control (aka the utilities are experiencing a black out). You can write the Tos To specifically state what would constitute reasonable downtime that Sony is responsible for and what kind of events that cause downtime that Sony is not responsible for.

 

I would like to see Sony set a reasonable uptime % and state what particular events they are responsible for when downtime occurs. Icing on the cake would be for them to establish a 3rd party to monitor it, but if they only did the first two, personally, I would trust them to monitor themselves and hold themselves accountable for the sake of the consumer base.

 

It's not like we dont see in the news and other internet outlets every time Sony does experience actual downtime. And it's not like we dont see the real reason for it eventually.

 

 


I saw that after I posted LOL.

 

IF the PSN was down due to Sony, faulty equipment or some reason they pulled the plug then absolutely. I have stated this in the past. My problem with the OP is that he is unreasonable in what he is asking for. Like I said at 99% there is still 3.5 days of downtime over a year. He wants to be compensated if it was 6 hours and caused by an entity that is outside of Sony's control. I do not agree. IF someone was smart enough they would keep running a DDoS when they were at work, unable to connect to the PSN anyway, just to extend their PS+ subscription. LOL

 

A day and half of maintenance, fine. 1-12 hours because of a DDoS? No.


I'm not asking for 1-2 hours...

 

again please read what I typed and tell me what part of this is unreasonable to you so I can understand your angst.

 

 


PLYMCO_PILGRIM wrote:

 

As consumers who own a PS4 we have to pre-pay for access to the PSN to play online games.  If the PSN goes down unannounced (maintenance is announced), on Sony's end (for example a ddos attack), then Sony should extend the Pre-paid PSN access time to those consumers.  

 

I also specified times.   If the PSN is down for 12 hours or less then Sony does not have to compensate.  It would then be done in 12 hour incriments.  12:00 -  23:59 would be a 12 hour credit,  24:00-35:59 would be a 24 hour credit, 36:00 - 47:59 would be a 36 hour credit.

 

 


 


As stated we pay for pure acess not time. Its not like a cell phone where you are buying minutes.  You are not buying 100 minutes to play on line here. you are paying for a year access rights to this.  Ounce callander year is over you are done. No matter what happens. You are not buying it like time for your phone. Also as said acts of god or uncontrolled events are not covered by any service provider. Some may do it to be nice but if you read there agreement it will say they are not. Again i agree if  PSN went down again due to maintenance or a janitor tripping over a cord and unplugging something on PSN. But for it to be attacked by a third part with a DDOS attack tht they could stop. Sony owes you nothing. Just like an earthquake knocking out the servers. Uncontrold event no one but god himself could stop.


I pay for PSN access on my PS4 based on time.  They sell PS+ (which you must buy to play games like BF4 or Destiny's PvP online) in timed incriments.   I bought 365 days of PSN access via my PS+ subscription.  Sony tracks this subscription right on your console based on time.  

 

IMG_0031.jpg


Um theres no clock saying you got 99 minutes either. you are not paying for it by the minute as you think. you got date a to date b valid to acess there servers. If they didnt do a year time line. Peopleexpect 50 bucks forever. You make it sound like its a pre paid phone 100 minutes and i lost 30 due to this problem. UM no its not. The only reason theres a date involved so people dont think its a 1 time forever deal. Again  seeing Sony cant stop a DDOS they dontowe you nothng. I tried to explain it in simple form and even agreeed with you on maintenance but again you will be that person when California fall in the ocean. Millions dieing. no psn to play on screaming I want the time Sony owes me. Have a good night. you just lack the skills to understand or just be so spoiled you expect way to much. 

Message 328 of 883 (169 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 01/24/2004
Online
7612 posts
 

Re: PS+ Compensation When Unable To Use The PSN?

Aug 28, 2014

PLYMCO_PILGRIM wrote:



I pay for PSN access on my PS4 based on time.  They sell PS+ (which you must buy to play games like BF4 or Destiny's PvP online) in timed incriments.   I bought 365 days of PSN access via my PS+ subscription.  Sony tracks this subscription right on your console based on time.  

 

IMG_0031.jpg


whoa whoa whoa!!

 

You think that you get 365 days of access? So if you join a health club with a 1 year membership you think you get 365 visits? So weekends they are closed they have to add to your time? That is not how this works! Not even close! This isn't roll over minutes!

 

You pay for access from date to date. If you are online 100% of the time or only 10 times throughout the year it doesn't matter! Your subscription is not in days, hours or minutes.

PSXBGamer- wrote:
"2000-2016 still in the year 2000 i didnt know we was in the year 3000"


http://community.us.playstation.com/t5/PlayStation-General/Does-it-bother-you-that-Sony-brags-about-how-well-they-re-doing/td-p/45935146/page/12


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRTN97XEASQ
Message 329 of 883 (286 Views)
Highlighted
Platinum
Registered: 12/21/2007
Offline
56286 posts
 

Re: PS+ Compensation When Unable To Use The PSN?

Aug 28, 2014

My gym was closed for rennovations for 2 weeks in feburary they extended our memberships for the time we couldn't use it.  They actually gave us all a free month but whatever.

 

 

Message 330 of 883 (279 Views)