How is everyone okay with this?

[potaco]

So....what you've been doing the whole thread?

Explaining why I feel the way I do, while acknowledging that there is no legal issue here. In the strictest sense, Blizzard did nothing wrong. What I find unacceptable is the lack of clarity, lack of communication, and lack of effort to do either.

See? I'm acknowledging your side of it, responding to the points you bring up, and still explaining my side of it.

[Deleted]

Maybe people instead should take responsibility for their own mistakes? If I don't read the details, I have no right to complain when it turns out not to be what I wanted. Now if I read the details, and it turns out to not be what I was told. That is completely different.

Bottom line is laziness isn't a valid argument.

I agree, blizzard should have communicated better. They were the ones with a message to get accross, they were the ones that failed.

But you know, that you could have found out that the ads were misleading if you looked at the contract is just proof they were misleading.....

[Endus]

People don't read contracts, the read ad blurb and listen to webcasts.

This is either outright false, and you've provided no evidence to support it, or "people" are ignorant and lazy, and absolutely should reap the consequences of that choice.

If you're upset because you did not read the agreement and didn't understand what you are signing, good. You should be. You should be furious with yourself for making such an incredibly senseless and lazy mistake. You should learn from this mistake and take it as an example of why not reading contracts and agreements is an incredibly stupid thing to do.

If you want them to understand what they are signing up to, the ad and the contract should be as harmonious as possible, rather than be like this cluster fuck.

They are harmonious, and nobody's ever shown otherwise.

The only people arguing that they aren't are those who never read the agreement in the first place, and thought the ad said something it very clearly never did.

[Ieatsouls]

Your attempt to be sarcastic fails, as you are in the inappropriate sub-forum to event remotely think that's the subject.

Ohhh I'm sorry!!! I'm not here to amuse you child... It's called a joke, you might understand them better when you grow up... move along troll. In other news I've been playing actively since day 1. I've done all the betas and have given my feed back on everything I could while testing. I have the AP and I opted in (even tho if you have AP you don't need to) and I fall under "People who have played longer category" and have yet to see a beta invite. Do I care if I get it anytime soon or ever....NO. MoP in my view as a Full time raider and PvPer just does not have what it takes to keep me in this game. It has Pokemon..... that was cool when I was in 7th grade in 1998..... This game is dying maybe not by a lot but it is. I found that Guild Wars 2 is going to be the way to go as a New MMO cause they listened to what people wanted and made it happen. Please don't bring up Guild War 1 as in GW2 case it's a new game from the ground up and the only thing that carries over is the lore. Will I play MoP sure, will I be as active as I have been thru out WoWs Lifespan probably not.

Keep it civil, please.

[razski]

The cost of all 400+ wow servers is less than 200k/year. Blizz made millions of $ but there is no money for more than 4 beta servers? They are just greedy. If they can't afford 40 beta servers then they should not sell annual passes with beta-access attached to them.

If you understood how much work goes into maintaining a server, how much staff, etc, then you wouldn't throw that as a reply. Blizz exsists to make money, throwing a ton of money at 4, instead of 40, makes more sense from a fiscal perspective.

[potaco]

This is either outright false, and you've provided no evidence to support it, or "people" are ignorant and lazy, and absolutely should reap the consequences of that choice.

Regardless of whether you read them, and despite it being wrong to NOT do so, it is common knowledge that, in general, most people do not read the contracts they sign.

http://consumerist.com/2009/03/consu...-not-sign.html

One study from NYU included a sample contract that bound the signer to stay until dismissed, do push-ups on command, and shock other participants, even if they "screamed, cried, and asked for medical assistance." 95.6% considered the contract for an average of two seconds and then gladly signed.

[Callax]

I agree, blizzard should have communicated better. They were the ones with a message to get accross, they were the ones that failed.

But you know, that you could have found out that the ads were misleading if you looked at the contract is just proof they were misleading.....

Ok, let me show you a screenshot of one of the earlier ads that someone complaining about the whole beta thing linked in another thread.



Notice how it say's nothing about us all getting in on day one, and as for "beta access will go live with beta launch", nothing about us all getting in at once, just it will go live with launch, like all other betas. Really, there's nothing misleading about that. We've already linked FAQ's and more that it will be sent out in waves, if someone really didn't read the contract, the ads, or the FAQ's from the annual pass to this day, then that is their fault.

[Deleted]

This is either outright false, and you've provided no evidence to support it, or "people" are ignorant and lazy, and absolutely should reap the consequences of that choice.

I provided evidence earlier in the thread. 1 in 3,000 according to one experiment, 1 in 7,000 in another actually read the contract.

[uote]

If you're upset because you did not read the agreement and didn't understand what you are signing, good. You should be. You should be furious with yourself for making such an incredibly senseless and lazy mistake. You should learn from this mistake and take it as an example of why not reading contracts and agreements is an incredibly stupid thing to do.[/quote]

Why should I? The lesson that should be learned is that some people and phrases can be deceptive. Quite why i'd blame myself for that I'd love to know.

They are harmonious, and nobody's ever shown otherwise.

The only people arguing that they aren't are those who never read the agreement in the first place, and thought the ad said something it very clearly never did.

The ad did say immediate access, so did Morhaime. And access hasn't been immediate.

End of story. Game over.

[Pann]

No, I am arguing that if the majority of people are jumping off bridges, rather than sit there with a stick up your ass saying "that's not right" you should build a safety net.

People don't read contracts, the read ad blurb and listen to webcasts. If you want them to understand what they are signing up to, the ad and the contract should be as harmonious as possible, rather than be like this cluster fuck.

I agree with you that people rarely read contracts online and I am guilty of it from time to time.

However people should read contracts in order to not only know exactly what they signed up to but to protect themselves from dishonest or sharp business practices. Herein lays the problem that Blizzard now have, many would have signed the AP without reading the terms because they trusted Blizzard and they now feel that what they signed up is not what they believed it to be. Once that trust has been eroded between the company and customer it is incredibly difficult for the company to regain that trust.

[razski]

Regardless of whether you read them, and despite it being wrong to NOT do so, it is common knowledge that, in general, most people do not read the contracts they sign.

http://consumerist.com/2009/03/consu...-not-sign.html

Regardless, if you didn't read the contract and still expected day 1 access, then its your own fault.

[potaco]

The only people arguing that they aren't are those who never read the agreement in the first place, and thought the ad said something it very clearly never did.

You can't use the "the ad was very clear" argument because we have already agreed that the wording was ambiguous (not clear).

[Deleted]

Ok, let me show you a screenshot of one of the earlier ads that someone complaining about the whole beta thing linked in another thread.



EDITING.

"beta access will go live with beta launch. "

Reading is hard....

[razski]

I provided evidence earlier in the thread. 1 in 3,000 according to one experiment, 1 in 7,000 in another actually read the contract.


If you're upset because you did not read the agreement and didn't understand what you are signing, good. You should be. You should be furious with yourself for making such an incredibly senseless and lazy mistake. You should learn from this mistake and take it as an example of why not reading contracts and agreements is an incredibly stupid thing to do.


Why should I? The lesson that should be learned is that some people and phrases can be deceptive. Quite why i'd blame myself for that I'd love to know.


The ad did say immediate access, so did Morhaime. And access hasn't been immediate.

End of story. Game over.

No, they did not! No one, ever, said immediate access, and your understanding of the word "when", in the context it was put, is frankly, shocking.

[Abandon]

Why should I?

Because it is entirely your own fault.

The lesson that should be learned is that some people and phrases can be deceptive.

And you are saying that you shouldn't have to learn that lesson.

Quite why i'd blame myself for that I'd love to know.

Because it is your own fault.

The ad did say immediate access, so did Morhaime.

Wrong on both counts.

And access hasn't been immediate.

Hey, you got one right!

End of story. Game over.

"beta access will go live with beta launch. "

Reading is hard....

Apparently it's goddam impossible. Feel free to point out where the word immediate appears in that ad, which is what you are claiming it says. Which it doesn't. At all.

[BMoG]

Almost all terms of use and end user agreements force you to sign your life away in some form or another. That's why no one gives a shit about the contract and only cares about the ad. If everyone didn't sign an agreement that they felt could be used to change the original offer, we wouldn't have shit. The regular consumer is screwed in this regard.

The ad was ambiguous. Many people misinterpreted the ad. If the amount of people misinterpreting the ad is high enough, it represents a problem with Blizzard to effectively communicate what they were trying to get across. End of story.

[Endus]

I provided evidence earlier in the thread. 1 in 3,000 according to one experiment, 1 in 7,000 in another actually read the contract.

Even if I accepted that as proof of a much broader trend, which I don't, it still doesn't justify laziness and ignorance.

The ad did say immediate access, so did Morhaime. And access hasn't been immediate.

"beta access will go live with the beta launch."

That doesn't say "immediate access" anywhere. You are, to be blunt, lying.

[gamingmuscle]

I agree, blizzard should have communicated better. They were the ones with a message to get accross, they were the ones that failed.

But you know, that you could have found out that the ads were misleading if you looked at the contract is just proof they were misleading.....

Stop.

The Ads and the Contract DO NOT contradict each other. You are either doing this for giggles, or you just can't accept the literal meaning of some words without injecting you own meaning into them.

All Statements in the Ads, and at Blizzcon are true with the beta being in waves. They would also be true if the invites were immediate for all.

[Callax]

"beta access will go live with beta launch. "

Reading is hard....

Perhaps you didn't notice the "EDITING" at the bottom, perhaps that had to do with someone editing their post because they did something wrong? As in me posting the wrong comment? You're right, reading IS hard!

Yes, I linked the wrong ad so let me repost what I said in the edit about it.

Notice how it say's nothing about us all getting in on day one, and as for "beta access will go live with beta launch", nothing about us all getting in at once, just it will go live with launch, like all other betas. Really, there's nothing misleading about that. We've already linked FAQ's and more that it will be sent out in waves, if someone really didn't read the contract, the ads, or the FAQ's from the annual pass to this day, then that is their fault.

[potaco]

The ad did say immediate access, so did Morhaime. And access hasn't been immediate.

End of story. Game over.

Well, no. The wording of the ad and the announcement was ambiguous. It could have meant what they want it to mean and it could have meant what you want it to mean. Based solely on the wording, it's impossible to say, and therefore ambiguous.

[gamingmuscle]

"beta access will go live with beta launch. "

Reading is hard....

Did beta access go live? Yes it did. Did everyone get day 1 access? No. Does this contradict the Ad. No.