They aren't holding themselves accountable for ANYTHING. This company ROUTINELY puts out this kind of horrific service.... No, really I won't leave I've ALREADY PAID. Try again... (on edit) Tell you what, I'll make them a deal. IF they repay me every SINGLE CENT I've spent on this game since launch (which is how long I've been around) I'll gladly leave. Until then they are going to get the feedback they apparently NEED to do better. If you don't like it don't read the forums.

Absolutely some recompense is in order. It's not just about the one dollar you're out for two days of not being able to play, they're selling an experience. Moreover some people arrange their schedules around new content and I could care LESS what you think about those people. They took time off work, or missed some function they could have attended etc etc etc. People absolutely have the RIGHT to expect good service from any company they're paying for service, and companies are routinely held accountable in courts for failing to do just that. I think it might be time to start holding game companies to the same standards we hold other companies to.

Seriously, we don't need to relax. When you get a steak that's been ordered well done and it comes out bloody you don't relax....you HOLD PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE for their CRAP service...period. If you don't, how do you expect anything to ever go correctly?

Would you consider sending e-mail alerts to those who want to get them when you're having problems like this please? I thought it was just me and totally uninstalled the game and am in the LOOONG process of re-installing now. This was totally unnecessary. I was gong to drop $99 bucks on the cartel market tonight too in hopes of getting the arbiter saber....who know's how I'll feel by tomorrow after all the frustration....

LOL, someone it just figuring out what makes the world go 'round...

I guess just keep asking. Don't even have to have a toggle, just include two chest pieces in the set if it's too much trouble to code...

Yep, this will be another mix and match set. In fact it's VERY rare to see an armor set that everything looks good. The unfortunate thing about this set is that the chest would have been the best piece as you can "fill in the gaps" with pieces of other sets...but that back pack and that GOD AWFUL antenna.....really? I mean REALLY??? Examples of good sets are "Revan Reborn" "Darth Revan" "Tulak Hord" "Ravager" "Sith Recluse" "Havoc Squad" "Dark Legionnaire" "Thexan's" and there are a BUNCH who have one or two good pieces. They know how to do good ones, they know which ones are popular, this is kinda shameful really. Without the backpack I'd have rated this up with Hord's or the sith recluse...with it, I'd honestly rate it with those idiotic huttball jerseys...seriously.

I agree, you and I don't have the final say though. According to the statute a minor even seeing obscenity once technically constitutes a crime. That's a fact. All we're discussing is who's liable...the individual, the company who failed to provide a proper rating, both, or neither.

Apples and oranges. EA can ban the lunatic who goes into the movie theater. In this hypothetical example they're doing nothing, or at least I've seen them do nothing many times in fleet chat...

No, but EA would have a better case if they actually did these things...moreover they'd have fewer instances of it if they actually did this...

Heck no I'm not. I very well may be. It just depends on a lawyer willing to take the case, and a judge or jury willing to convict. What I AM saying is that it's not a stretch....

I know someone in WOW who earned a three day ban for saying racial epithets in Orgrimmar chat. I know a family member who was perma banned in DAOC for defaming French people on the pads you stand on just before porting to the pvp zone...

EA can specifically say unicorns fly over the moon every night. If they provide a vehicle for minors to have obscene interactions then they ARE liable. They can't waive that liability by saying we're not responsible for interactions that happen on OUR PROPERTY (ie our servers). Good luck with that one if you get a good lawyer and a sympathetic judge/community. I didn't write the statue but it's as clear as a bell if you read it.

If EA gives a rating to a game where public interactions occur, and some of those are obscene, then they are liable according to the statute, especially if they fail to take action when such interactions happen. Not my rules....I'm just pointing them out. If you don't like them then have the government change them. Also, companies are treated as people under the law....just saying...

You can't waive liability, especially when it's possibly criminal.... how many times do people need to say this?

Uh, what? I'm simply talking about personal liability and the inability to avoid it. It applies to EVERYTHING, not just malpractice. Try again.

I'm not saying that online interactions are rated, I'm saying no reasonable person would expect that providing a vehicle for interactions you KNOW are going to occur, or not taking actions when they do occur when it involves minors opens you up to liability. Surgeons have you sign paperwork which makes it SEEM like you waive personal liability every time they operate on you....it doesn't work though

Both wrong, ratings do matter. In fact I'm surprised some enterprising parent not only hasn't sued but hasn't won....at least in the United States. There is VERY little wiggle room here... http://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-obscenity "to the community"....that's EXTREMELY broad....and if you sue or file charges in the "right" place you're gonna win that one.

Actually they would be as the interaction is part of the advertised content. Is anyone here under the impression they're going to be playing this game alone? No? Didn't think so.... Neither does EA, in fact they advertise it as a feature, which is WHY they have rules of conduct. If they don't enforce them they're making a choice not to live up to the content they've advertised. Go fish. Again, to be CLEAR, I'm playing "devil's advocate" here. Chill on the personal attacks FFS.

To all of the above.... http://www.aallnet.org/mm/Advocacy/recommendedguidelines/fair-practice-guide.html You can't advertise something, which includes the rating, and not provide it. It's basic stuff. The fact that you all are having such trouble getting that is baffling. It's BASIC buisness, not advanced stuff, this is stuff a three year old knows....you promised him chocolate and gave him vanilla. He knows you rooked him. And AGAIN, for the record, I don't think any of what we've been talking about merits legal action. I don't think it needs to be policed beyond a filter (which they have) and an ignore function (which they have)....but what I THINK doesn't matter. I'm certain if anyone wanted to push it they'd have a case, a laywer to take it, and a judge or jury that would rule against EA on a bad day. Period.

Denial of services/poor services in answer to your last question. Parents allow their kids to play the game with a rating which is reflected in the EULA. Their refusal to enforce their rules effects the entire player base and constitutes damages. Lastly they aren't hard to enforce AT ALL. I've seen companies enforce them quite well in the past. Exactly, what is so hard to understand about that? If they fail to do so they aren't living up to what they advertised. They ARE required to give you a specific experience, the rating is just one example....there are many more, and all of which would constitute a breach of contract.

Not socially conditioned well enough LOL. What does that even mean? Take whatever anyone gives you and smile.... If someone tried to commit suicide and then upon their return to school they had pills thrown at them in front of the staff saying things like "get the job done right this time"...if that person cried or was emotionally damaged because of that would they not be socially conditioned well enough? What amount of abuse do you consider perfectly acceptable and any "properly conditioned" person SHOULD be able to take? What's your limit? Racial epithets? Cursing at 5 year old kids? How low is perfectly socially acceptable? I agree that what you're saying is something to strive for, and I also agree with your general sentiment (oddly enough), but I'm also wise enough to realize that not everyone is ME...

Hopefully you don't sign contracts often...I'd love to hear you say that to a judge or a jury. Collectively this is EXACTLY the kind of thing that lands companies in court with class action suits...in short YES it does matter what's in a EULA or a TOS document.

Couldn't agree more. I wish the "2 man" heroics could be more challenging (not THIS challenging, but still). It would be cool to have Hard mode, and Nightmare Mode for a SOLO run in all flashpoints IMVHO.

No, it isn't. No more ignorant that saying there is a difference between someone calling you an idiot on the street and in your own home. The internet is not SWTOR, it's not ignorance to point out this fact any more than pointing out the sky is blue. Oh, I've seen it happen in other games...believe me I was there when I saw it happen. This is either laziness, complicity, or a lack of staff. Don't' say it can't be done though or it's a "feature" of EVERYTHING on the internet because it most certainly isn't. I'm not blaming anyone for anything. I could care less. That doesn't mean I don't think the OP is absolutely ENTITLED to the experience described in the EULA. As a matter of contract law it's a no brainer...