Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Mr Hyena wrote:
Its pretty surprising theres a lawsuit over this game for 'misleading' people, while there is not a single lawsuit for [...] Mass Effect as a whole or anything published by THQ.

What the feth?

THQ did not do this kind of willful misrepresentation of its products. Nor was mass effect so willfully misrepresented. I can't speak for the Fable series, but seriously? Nothing THQ did was at anywhere near this level of misrepresentation.

 Necroshea wrote:
We should sue fast food joints. I sure as hell never got what they promised me.

McDonalds Canada Actually did a video on this...

Were any of the misleading gameplay videos ever released as 'gameplay footage' with or without an 'alpha/beta' tag? As long as no one can prove that they ever said, "What you are seeing right now is exactly what you will see in the game," I think Gearbox will be covered by the usual disclaimers.

I also think that, even if not, the lawsuit is a waste of time.

 Valion wrote:
Were any of the misleading gameplay videos ever released as 'gameplay footage' with or without an 'alpha/beta' tag?

Yes, they were. If you watch the videos or read the article...aw whats the point.

It's not going anywhere, that's fosho.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Valion wrote:
Were any of the misleading gameplay videos ever released as 'gameplay footage' with or without an 'alpha/beta' tag?

Yes, they were. If you watch the videos or read the article...aw whats the point.

I read the article. All it says is that the Gearbox guy allegedly said it was actual gameplay footage. That 'allegedly' is important, and why it's probably going to come down to what the videos themselves actually say with regard to their content, if it even gets heard.

It was a hands on game play demo that the game press was given access to at E3 years ago. Controllers and everything. So yeah. They've kind of botched themselves on that front.

I'm worried about them keeping mum about any further season pass releases, sounds like they're calling quits on the whole debacle.

I expect little will come of the suit personally. Actually I except Sega to respond with some absurdist position ala Capcom's recent stupidity.

I expect to be entertained, if not by A:CM, then by whatever silliness will follow this case

I'm sorry, but what did Capcom do? I'm curious now.

 BrookM wrote:
I'm sorry, but what did Capcom do? I'm curious now.

Capcom isn't doing too well this year. Profits for the current financial year will be about half of what was initially forecast, the company has warned. It was quick to point the finger at Western developers, under performing projects, and "not taking advantage of digital markets." Their solution for this is to cut ties with Western developers, and produce more DLC, a move that is sure to rustle a few jimmies, considering Capcom's "questionable" DLC policy.

Also to blame for the profit loss were recent restructuring efforts at the company, an effort to keep up with "drastic changes in the industry's market environment." They also cited the "concentration of AAA titles in the hands of few foreign competitors" and its "delayed response to the shift to digital media in the home videogames business," as problems to be addressed.

The most worrying thing that came out of this press release was the fact that Capcom asserted that "decline in quality of titles outsourced to overseas developers" has forced it to alter its business strategy: it wants to shift Western developers to internal R&D and "increase post-release DLC." Earlier this year, Capcom rebooted its Devil May Cry franchise with DMC: Devil may Cry, which was developed by UK studio Ninja Theory. While getting generally favorable reviews, the game ultimately failed to reach sales expectations.

Lastly, Capcom stated that "work in progress in game software" has been "strictly re-evaluated for business restructuring". This is business speak for "games that we think won't sell well, or don't have the potential for post-release DLC, we are going to cancel."

Capcom recently tapped American developer WayForward to develop its DuckTales remake. Let's hope that this one manages to avoid the chopping block!

Because not having enough DLC, is totally a problem for them right now and clearly, outsourcing their game franchises is the other one (hint, that's the opposite of their problems).

I see, thanks!

@Lordofhats

Interesting. My biggest issue with capcom is I don't feel secure buying a game from them. When they remake a game 5 time, and you got stuck with the first iteration which now isn't worth squat, and this isn't the first time it's happened, suffice to say things get rage worthy.

 Necroshea wrote:
@Lordofhats

Interesting. My biggest issue with capcom is I don't feel secure buying a game from them. When they remake a game 5 time, and you got stuck with the first iteration which now isn't worth squat, and this isn't the first time it's happened, suffice to say things get rage worthy.

I will second this. It gets fairly old fairly quickly to be sure.

Honestly, I think we're likely to see Capcom going the way of THQ in a couple of years.

TL;DR. There are food stylists and food photoshop specialists. Maybe the most specialized and unnecessary jobs ever in the history of humanity.

And who still cares about Aliens Colonial Marines?

 LordofHats wrote:
It was a hands on game play demo that the game press was given access to at E3 years ago. Controllers and everything. So yeah. They've kind of botched themselves on that front.

Wait, how would that not be covered under alpha/beta, not the final product status?

 Cave_Dweller wrote:
And who still cares about Aliens Colonial Marines?

The people filing the suit. That was an incredibly easy question. I can't believe you couldn't figure that out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Valion wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
It was a hands on game play demo that the game press was given access to at E3 years ago. Controllers and everything. So yeah. They've kind of botched themselves on that front.

Wait, how would that not be covered under alpha/beta, not the final product status?

Because they said this is a demo of the actual game using actual gameplay, but it was neither. It is the difference between 'this is the game you are getting' and 'this is an early build'. Considering that it was light years ahead of the actual game that was released it would be odd if it were an earlier build. Usually you don't remove lighting/textures as you progress, or whole sequences that are said to be in the game and then were not.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Cave_Dweller wrote:
And who still cares about Aliens Colonial Marines?

The people filing the suit. That was an incredibly easy question. I can't believe you couldn't figure that out.

Yeah, kind of a rhetorical snipe there. Sorry you didn't figure that out. Maybe you're one of the guys suing Sega?

 Cave_Dweller wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Cave_Dweller wrote:
And who still cares about Aliens Colonial Marines?

The people filing the suit. That was an incredibly easy question. I can't believe you couldn't figure that out.

Yeah, kind of a rhetorical snipe there. Sorry you didn't figure that out. Maybe you're one of the guys suing Sega?

So basically you said something stupid, got called on it, and are now lashing out. If that makes you feel better more power to you I suppose, but it doesn't change that it was a dumb thing to say.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Cave_Dweller wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Cave_Dweller wrote:
And who still cares about Aliens Colonial Marines?

The people filing the suit. That was an incredibly easy question. I can't believe you couldn't figure that out.

Yeah, kind of a rhetorical snipe there. Sorry you didn't figure that out. Maybe you're one of the guys suing Sega?

So basically you said something stupid, got called on it, and are now lashing out. If that makes you feel better more power to you I suppose, but it doesn't change that it was a dumb thing to say.

So you're one of the guys suing Sega?

 Cave_Dweller wrote:
So you're one of the guys suing Sega?

Nope, never even bought the game.

 Cave_Dweller wrote:
And who still cares about Aliens Colonial Marines?

Please find something to do other than post in threads for the sole purpose of letting everyone know how disinterested you are in the subject matter in the OP.

But if he doesn't post it here how would we know.

 Ahtman wrote:
Because they said this is a demo of the actual game using actual gameplay, but it was neither. It is the difference between 'this is the game you are getting' and 'this is an early build'. Considering that it was light years ahead of the actual game that was released it would be odd if it were an earlier build. Usually you don't remove lighting/textures as you progress, or whole sequences that are said to be in the game and then were not.

That was my point earlier. The plaintiffs would need to prove that that claim - actual gameplay, etc. - was ever truly made. Otherwise, I'd assume the presumption of alpha/beta/whatever not-final-version you want to go with status is assumed.

 Valion wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Because they said this is a demo of the actual game using actual gameplay, but it was neither. It is the difference between 'this is the game you are getting' and 'this is an early build'. Considering that it was light years ahead of the actual game that was released it would be odd if it were an earlier build. Usually you don't remove lighting/textures as you progress, or whole sequences that are said to be in the game and then were not.

That was my point earlier. The plaintiffs would need to prove that that claim - actual gameplay, etc. - was ever truly made. Otherwise, I'd assume the presumption of alpha/beta/whatever not-final-version you want to go with status is assumed.

At that point there is no such thing as false advertising, as a company can say one thing and years down the line shake their heads and say "we never explicitly said that." Even if they never said literally "this is actual game play" the question should be asked "is this deceiving to consumers" and the answer is yes. It is deceiving to consumers to create a advertisement that bears absolutely no relation to the final product being advertised. Going back to the whopper analogy, it would be like Burger King advertising 100% Real Beef and then selling you a burger patty that is only 20% meat (and that meat isn't even beef). Sure the whopper on TV looks way better than the one you'll actually get but that's the only difference between the two really. At the end of the day the whopper you get still has a patty, cheese, and whatever other ingredients are shown on tv. They just don't look as spiffy.

The games industry has been playing fast and loose with advertising for a long time. Because it's a "kids" medium people have ignored that for a very long time. But gamers are getting older and with age comes the experience to realize when you're being lied to.

And they did said it was a game play demo. The article uses the word 'allegedly' because in legal cases you make allegations (see Definition 3). The word demo (i.e. demonstration) is taken as being a snippet of the game intended to showcase the full product. The demo bore almost no resemblance to the final product. There is no question that they presented and called the demo actual game play (and honestly, even if they hadn't we should all question why a fake demo was made to sell a game that never existed so that they could sell some other game under the same title instead).

That and as has been pointed out it's not just about the old demo. It's about the way the game was advertised up to release as being what the demo showed and it turned out the final product was nothing like the demo. Then there's the fact that the game was advertised as being made by a company that wasn't even making the game.

 LordofHats wrote:
At that point there is no such thing as false advertising, as a company can say one thing and years down the line shake their heads and say "we never explicitly said that." Even if they never said literally "this is actual game play" the question should be asked "is this deceiving to consumers" and the answer is yes. It is deceiving to consumers to create a advertisement that bears absolutely no relation to the final product being advertised. Going back to the whopper analogy, it would be like Burger King advertising 100% Real Beef and then selling you a burger patty that is only 20% meat (and that meat isn't even beef). Sure the whopper on TV looks way better than the one you'll actually get but that's the only difference between the two really. At the end of the day the whopper you get still has a patty, cheese, and whatever other ingredients are shown on tv. They just don't look as spiffy.

The games industry has been playing fast and loose with advertising for a long time. Because it's a "kids" medium people have ignored that for a very long time. But gamers are getting older and with age comes the experience to realize when you're being lied to.

And they did said it was a game play demo. The article uses the word 'allegedly' because in legal cases you make allegations (see Definition 3). The word demo (i.e. demonstration) is taken as being a snippet of the game intended to showcase the full product. The demo bore almost no resemblance to the final product. There is no question that they presented and called the demo actual game play (and honestly, even if they hadn't we should all question why a fake demo was made to sell a game that never existed so that they could sell some other game under the same title instead).

That and as has been pointed out it's not just about the old demo. It's about the way the game was advertised up to release as being what the demo showed and it turned out the final product was nothing like the demo. Then there's the fact that the game was advertised as being made by a company that wasn't even making the game.

That's not really the case though, or else we would never see any alpha/beta play, or even footage. Until the product hits shelves, it's considered in development. Well, until it goes gold, to be technical, I guess. If game companies could be held liable for not including something shown in a non-final build, that would be the end of pre-release advertising with anything other than screenshots. What if you come up with a cool new feature, showcase it, and then discover it breaks the game or something halfway through? If you can fix it, sure, that'd be great, but if you've only got a week until you go gold, it's smarter in some cases to simply pull it and maybe release it in a patch later.

Or perhaps it's not even a game-breaking bug, but simply Way A and Way B of a certain mechanic. Beta players liked Way A better when it was being tested, but the devs came up with Way B which they felt worked better with the game. Should the players be allowed to sue because the game doesn't include their preferred mechanic? Of course not, but that's a plausible occurrence if this case gets any traction. I don't think it will, though.

Suing because a game didn't turn out as well as promised or shown is sticky. I mean there have been quite a few games that didn't live up to expectations. Even games that I felt mislead me. They didn't out right fabricate game play footage like in A:CM, but I imagine could get rather thorny to gauge what is misleading what is close enough and all the other details. I guess that is what lawyers are for though.

It is a whole big bag of worms that I can't imagine will all sort out nicely, but I think it has to be done. The buyer beware aspect of games is just too rampant.

For the love of...
There is a difference between a game not living up to expectations and a company actively misleading people by giving them a demo which pure fabrication.

nomotog wrote:
Suing because a game didn't turn out as well as promised or shown is sticky.

Indeed. If only there were some body of rules, and people that were experts in those rules, that others could avail themselves of to make a determination on such things.