A class-action lawsuit has been filed against Microsoft in a U.S. District Court in Texas on behalf of gamers affected by Xbox Live crashes over the holidays. The suit alleges breach of contract, breach of warranty, and negligent misrepresentation stating the stakes somewhere over $5 million.

 

So, do you think Microsoft should pay out such a huge amount in exchange for periodic outages? Maybe more than just the crappy Live game they shlocked up as a peace offering would have sated users. Now they’ve got somewhat of a problem on their hands.

I think this lawsuit is retarded. Its the Internet, shit happens, get over it. They claim that Microsoft didn't prepare their server's for this (I think), but how do they know that? What if Microsoft did, and it still didn't work out.

 

The CTRL-ALT-DELETE guy did a little rant on this that I agree with completely.

I would be in total agreement if Xbox live was free.  When I played the playstation online for free, I put up with bad connections and lots of lag.... but hey... its free.  Many will argue that the cost to the consumer for their lost time is minimal... like a few cents based on the yearly cost.  However the Holidays is when most people are off work and have the most time to use the service. 

 

I think it is silly to sue the company... but I would like something in return for my lost time.

 

If my cable was out for a week, I am sure the company would comp me something.

I would be in total agreement if Xbox live was free.  When I played the playstation online for free, I put up with bad connections and lots of lag.... but hey... its free.  Many will argue that the cost to the consumer for their lost time is minimal... like a few cents based on the yearly cost.  However the Holidays is when most people are off work and have the most time to use the service. 

 

I think it is silly to sue the company... but I would like something in return for my lost time.

 

If my cable was out for a week, I am sure the company would comp me something.

 

The difference is, that you pay so little, its not worth compinsation.

You pay a one year subscription fee of like $20 right?

 

wow you pay $15 a month, and if they have 'extended' downtime, they occasionally credit everyones account to bill '1 day later'.

but in xbox lives case, if they cost what I think they do, its just plain not worth any creditting..  (aka they puttin $$ in yer account)

now extending everyones renew date by say, 1 week... (which would cost them what, $0.02 per day, per person?)

I'd be surprised if the lawsuit went anywhere.

What can you say about this:

 

I bought "gears of war" game. But I cannot play on multiplayer because..... WINDOWS LIVE is not supported in my region! So Microsoft sells games to the countries knowing that players won't be able to fully use their products.... that just stinks!  >:(

Wow, that sucks. Where do you live, if you don't mind my asking?

Poland :-) in central Europe. I browsed GOW forums for some clues, and players told me to create LIVE account using countries like UK/US/Irleand then I will be able to play. I'll give it a try.

As much as I dislike the 360, I still say this 'lawsuit' is a bunch of patouey.

 

I mean, you pay $50 annually for gold membership, right?

thats, $4.17 per month, or $0.14 Per day! DAY!

How long were people unable to get online for? Multiplied by that, And by the 175 people in the said law suit?

It probably comes to about... $200, which doesn't even cover the atorney/court fees! ;)

 

And I've heard that microsoft is issuing a 'free game' for compensation for xbox live going down.

Quite simply, the people doing the law suit are giant Dusches!(sp)

 

Consider, World of Warcraft.

Completely online MMORPG.

The first 6 months of the game were chaotic, servers were jampacked, and HOUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of players, were litterally unable to play, any aspect of there game at all! Yet, did Blizzard get sued?

Nope.

Did they get sued when the Servers were down for 3 days in a row?!

Nope.

 

All they did was issue a '1 day', or '3 day' credit on your next bill, & double xp, and people didn't 'sue'.

Xbox live? Its not like you can't play your games in single player!

Just pop in mass effect. Ands its not like being unable to play online is costing you money, in the sense of being unable to go to your job is costing you money. ;)

 

/rant?

You are looking at it wrongly. 

 

Consider I play mostly over the weekend and over holidays like most players.  The downtime was during the winter holiday.  That comes out to more like 42 cents a day.  That is unacceptable especially when that constitutes about $3 dollars in downtime.  *g*

What happens if the power goes out?  You can't get online.  You can't really do squat.  Do you sue the electric company?

You are looking at it wrongly. 

 

Consider I play mostly over the weekend and over holidays like most players.  The downtime was during the winter holiday.  That comes out to more like 42 cents a day.  That is unacceptable especially when that constitutes about $3 dollars in downtime.  *g*

 

It doesn't matter if you only play during the weekends, + holidays.

From there stand point, yoru only paying $0.14 a day.

 

Really, even if it were $3 for the entire break, per person. Its not that much. And you can still play single player games!

Unlike, World of Warcraft, and other MMO downtimes, when they are down, you can't play. And even people who said they were going to sue (which was a very small number of people who didn't even get any ackholwedgement in any news) didn't go anywhere...

Well yeah, they can play single player games. They could also go out in the snow and play, but that's not what they were paying for. They paid for online gaming. It's stupid suing though. When we hear about these things in Europe, it only enforces the belief that Americans will sue for anything. But that's not true... Right?

Hax, that comes very close to an unflattering generalization of Americans. I'm suing you for defamation of the character of the entire population of the United States.  ;D

It's only defamation if it's false. :P

When i read this thread i was thinking the exact same thing, my Haxy friend.

It's only defamation if it's false. :P

 

No, it doesn't matter if it's true or not.

 

I'll point you to the Supreme Court case Times v Firestone.

It's only defamation if it's false. :P

 

No, it doesn't matter if it's true or not.

 

I'll point you to the Supreme Court case Times v Firestone.

 

Oh, and Xbox failed to uphold their end of the contract so they should, at the very least, refund their subscribers.  They created Xbox live to prevent any problems with online gaming, you're paying for teh hassle free experince, and they failed. 

 

It would have been one if it happened because of a virus or an Act of God, but they just showed crappy planning but not having enough servers.

It's only defamation if it's false. :P

 

No, it doesn't matter if it's true or not.

 

I'll point you to the Supreme Court case Times v Firestone.

 

Oh, and Xbox failed to uphold their end of the contract so they should, at the very least, refund their subscribers.  They created Xbox live to prevent any problems with online gaming, you're paying for the hassle free experince, and they failed. 

 

It would have been one if it happened because of a virus or an Act of God, but they just showed crappy planning but not having enough servers.

 

You pay for the use of WoW or any other MMorpg for better maintained servers, and they occasionally god down, or get bogged due to traffic. And your paying $15 a month for those, unlike $50 a year for xbox live. A refund is pointless, its only a few cents; and you guys are getting a free game for compensation, so the lawsuit is even more 'stupid' now. (even though the copensation came after the sueing.)

It's only defamation if it's false. :P

 

No, it doesn't matter if it's true or not.

 

I'll point you to the Supreme Court case Times v Firestone.

 

It doesn't matter? Ok, so I know nothing about US law, but from what I can gather from the case you pointed to, Time published an article containing false information about Mary Firestone. The question was whether she was a public figure or not, because media is protected from defamation suits when running articles about public figures, except when there's actual malice.

 

I could be (and probably am) totally wrong though.

It's only defamation if it's false. :P

 

No, it doesn't matter if it's true or not.

 

I'll point you to the Supreme Court case Times v Firestone.

 

It doesn't matter? Ok, so I know nothing about US law, but from what I can gather from the case you pointed to, Time published an article containing false information about Mary Firestone. The question was whether she was a public figure or not, because media is protected from defamation suits when running articles about public figures, except when there's actual malice.

 

I could be (and probably am) totally wrong though.

 

I'm reminding of Hustler Magazine v. Falwell.

Which basically means,

-speech guarantee prohibits awarding damages to public figures to compensate for emotional distress intentionally inflicted upon them unless they can show that the statements that gave rise to the distress were false and that the person that made those statements knew they were false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth in making the statements.

 

:P

You use too many words, SD. I don't understand. Was it "Hax, right!" or "Hax, wroooong!"?