Class action lawsuit filed over Aliens: Colonial Marines

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.

**Ouze**

source

Fans sue over 'Aliens' game that bears 'little resemblance' to its preview
Yannick LeJacq , NBC News contributor – 3 hrs.

Angry over a game that "bore little resemblance" to the so-called "actual gameplay" shown in previews, indignant purchasers of the widely panned "Aliens: Colonial Marines" may get their day in court.

Edelson LLC, a law firm, has filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of customers who pre-ordered or purchased the game on launch day, alleging that Sega and Gearbox Software — the publisher and developer of the "Aliens" title, respectively — falsely advertised the game.

"There were promises that Sega and Gearbox made about what the game was going to look like," Ben Thomassen, a lawyer for Edelson, told NBC News. "Promotional material of 'Aliens: Colonial Marines' was shown at several game conferences and expositions, and continued to be shown up until the game's release."

"When people viewed these kinds of things, they thought they knew what they were buying," Thomassen said. "These were promises about what the game was going to look like."

The suit, filed April 29 in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, cites a number of different promotional events for "Aliens" put on by Sega and Gearbox at major industry trade shows and events like PAX and E3, saying that they did not accurately represent the final product gamers eventually received. Gearbox co-founder Randy Pitchford himself allegedly described these promotional materials as "actual gameplay," the suit says.

The shipped "Aliens" was criticized by many reviewers for being markedly different from the promoted version, with weaker graphics and artificial intelligence.

"Each of the 'actual gameplay' demonstrations purported to show consumers exactly what they would be buying: a cutting edge video game with very specific features and qualities," Edelson's complaint stated. "Unfortunately for their fans, Defendants never told anyone — consumers, industry critics, reviewers or reporters — that their 'actual gameplay' demonstration advertising campaign bore little resemblance to the retail product that would eventually be sold to a large community of unwitting purchasers."

Additionally, the suit claims that Sega and Gearbox's use of embargo agreements with the media left customers with no other outlet for information about "Aliens: Colonial Marines" besides the inaccurate promotional material. Game critics were originally given review codes under embargo until Feb. 12 — the same day the game first became available to the general public. When the actual "Aliens: Colonial Marines" game was reviewed, it received dismal scores across the board — averaging a score well below 50 percent on the review aggregation site Metacritic.

The discrepancy between the early praise for "Aliens" and the weak final product has caused an outcry from members of the gaming press, who felt like unwitting accomplices in the alleged sham. Stephen Totilo, the editor-in-chief of the popular gaming site Kotaku, responded to the controversy with a post titled, “Apologies If We Wasted Your Time With That Preview.” Destructoid followed up on its review with an article saying, "We've been lied to by Randy Pitchford and Gearbox. We passed those lies onto the consumers."

When Pitchford himself was asked on Twitter for an explanation of why the game differs from the demo, the Gearbox co-founder replied, "That is understood and fair and we are looking at that. Lots of info to parse, lots of stake holders to respect." This public acknowledgment of the matter was noted in Edelson's filing.

Attorney Thomassen told NBC News he could see how the gaming press might have unwittingly participated in what Destructoid's Jim Sterling called "one great big lie."

"In this case, you can directly see that [the media] embargo had a real effect on people who purchased the game," Thomassen said.

But Thomassen added that the game industry, like any other consumer-facing industry, is legally obligated to provide its customers with accurate information — a standard that may have been irregularly applied to game companies in the past since the industry itself is still in its relative infancy.

"If you can't take their word for it, then whose should you be taking?" Thomassen said of Sega and Gearbox. "As the industry becomes more and more mainstream, hopefully people will come to expect a little more forthrightness."

Representatives for Sega and Gearbox did not respond to requests for comment on this story. We will update the story when we hear back from them.

Thomassen said for now, the case will proceed "as a normal putative class-action lawsuit." While he noted that it is "hard to predict an outcome" so early in a case's proceedings, when asked what Edelson hoped for as an ideal outcome, he said, "at this point we do think some sort of refund is appropriate."

This is hardly the first time that gamers have rallied together to take a game company to task for under delivering. Furor over the ending to "Mass Effect 3" caused developer BioWare to ultimately change the game's final cut-scenes. Activision Blizzard has faced ongoing legal problems with "Diablo 3" ever since the game was originally released with its controversial always-online requirement. And Edelson itself even took action against Electronic Arts in 2011 after gamers playing the PlayStation 3 version of "Battlefield 3" didn't receive copies of "Battlefield 1942" they were promised — a case that was resolved "not terribly long after EA announced that they would give players the copy of Battlefield 1943," Thomassen said.

**SagesStone**

Hmm wonder how this could effect the future. Depending on how it goes publishers could become a little more careful about how their product is when released. Hopefully less stuff like EA and their fun Sim City release. Though I doubt it'd do much if anything really.

**Necroshea**

So they made a bad game and screwed people over. That happens.

Of course, it's America. Better sue the crap out of them.

**Ouze**

Necroshea wrote:
So they made a bad game and screwed people over. That happens.

Of course, it's America. Better sue the crap out of them.

This is not an accurate recounting of the events which unfolded, in my opinion. Frankly I have to wonder if you read the article, which takes the time to explain some of the merits of the suit.

They delivered a fundamentally different product than what they showed and claimed was actual gameplay and did so right up until the day was released; when they knew what they were selling was not what they were advertising. I don't know what background you have with the game, but I'm going to presume little to none, so that I can take the opportunity to point you towards this video, which I think may sway your opinion some, or at least educate on why I think this is a reasonable suit to bring. Note that the video has NSFW language.

If you'd like to see the original video sans the Escapist's narration, you may find it here.

Their product was misleading, and the class suffered actual, measurable damages. I think it's a strong case; and I also think it's probably not the last litigation we'll see related to this title: apparently they were lying to Sega about the development of the game as well.

**Ma55ter_fett**

Seems stupid to me...

... but then again I sued J.K. Rowling after I read that Snape killed Dumbledore.

She'd better pay for not meeting my expectations!

**Necroshea**

Frankly I have to wonder if you read the article

Why would I respond without reading the article?

I don't know what background you have with the game, but I'm going to presume little to none

You presume wrong. Got halfway through the game, thought it was terrible, and so got rid of it.

so that I can take the opportunity to point you towards this video, which I think may sway your opinion some, or at least educate on why I think this is a reasonable suit to bring. Note that the video has NSFW language.

Got a few minutes into it then stopped the video. Guys voice annoyed me. Still, it followed the same route as other videos I've seen.

Again, the game sucked, they failed to deliver what they said they would, get over it. If a bad game you impulse bought for 60 dollars instead of waiting for reviews to be released irks you enough to go to court, well, I pity you.

**Ouze**

They aren't being sued for making a bad game. They're being sued for misrepresenting their game.

**Necroshea**

Ouze wrote:
They aren't being sued for making a bad game. They're being sued for misrepresenting their game.

So tell me this, if someone wouldn't have bought the game would they have cared? Not really, it's just another bad use of the license.

So most likely the ones throwing a tantrum over this are the ones who bought the game.

So they're going to court over a 60 dollar or less game they bought on impulse.

Publisher - "Hey consumer, this game is good. Here, you can buy it if you want."

Consumer - "Wow this game sucks, I'm suing you"

What about the people who thought the game was good? Should they join in on the lawsuit too?

If you still don't see how this is a completely silly suit that should be laughed out of the court, don't even bother responding back to this, there really is just no point.

**Ma55ter_fett**

Suddeny GW's policy on information leaks makes sense.

Release a consept sketch for a model and then have the model not look like the consept sketch and suddenly their the ones getting cease and desist letters in the mail.

**Necroshea**

Ma55ter_fett wrote:
Suddeny GW's policy on information leaks makes sense.

Release a consept sketch for a model and then have the model not look like the consept sketch and suddenly their the ones getting cease and desist letters in the mail.

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

**Ouze**

Truth in advertising laws, and their applicability to fast food restaurants are a fascinating topic as well. You should start a new topic if you wish to do so, since in this thread we are discussing Aliens: Colonial Marines.

Necroshea wrote:
Ouze wrote:
They aren't being sued for making a bad game. They're being sued for misrepresenting their game.

So tell me this, if someone wouldn't have bought the game would they have cared? Not really, it's just another bad use of the license.

So most likely the ones throwing a tantrum over this are the ones who bought the game.

By definition, to participate in this class, you must have bought the game. That is how class action lawsuits work. Again, scandalized as you were when I suggested you had not read the article, this information is explicitly contained within it: people who pre-ordered, or bought it on launch day.

Necroshea wrote:
Publisher - "Hey consumer, this game is good. Here, you can buy it if you want."

Consumer - "Wow this game sucks, I'm suing you"

Again, that's not the case. It's more like "Hey, there is all this content in the game"; and then after buying the game, finding that the vast majority of said content was not actually present.

Necroshea wrote:
If you still don't see how this is a completely silly suit that should be laughed out of the court, don't even bother responding back to this, there really is just no point.

Well, as much as I appreciate you underlining the conditions in which i may further participate in my own thread, I think I'll continue to post as I wish.

**Kain**

Seems a bit frivolous, but the more power to consumers the better.

**Sigvatr**

I don't get all the hate about AvP. Sure, they showed sth. different. Better maybe.

But really, I have zero (ZERO) empathy for all those people buying the game before the first reviews came in. All of them told you the game was utter trash.

People who bought the game should take this as a lesson for future purchases. It's their own fault, really.

**Mr Hyena**

Its pretty surprising theres a lawsuit over this game for 'misleading' people, while there is not a single lawsuit for any of the Fable games, Mass Effect as a whole or anything published by THQ.

**purplefood**

It's not that the game sucked rather than they actively deceived people with a fake demo. fable may have promised and didn't deliver but not nearly to the degree of AvP...

**Soladrin**

Necroshea wrote:
Ouze wrote:
They aren't being sued for making a bad game. They're being sued for misrepresenting their game.

So tell me this, if someone wouldn't have bought the game would they have cared? Not really, it's just another bad use of the license.

So most likely the ones throwing a tantrum over this are the ones who bought the game.

So they're going to court over a 60 dollar or less game they bought on impulse.

Publisher - "Hey consumer, this game is good. Here, you can buy it if you want."

Consumer - "Wow this game sucks, I'm suing you"

What about the people who thought the game was good? Should they join in on the lawsuit too?

If you still don't see how this is a completely silly suit that should be laughed out of the court, don't even bother responding back to this, there really is just no point.

You are aware that false advertisement is simply Illegal right?

I for one am glad to see this happen and I do hope they can make some headway (though I very much doubt it). Publishers are getting away with horrible business practice and in some cases even straight up illegal actions for way too long.

**LordofHats**

In many ways, I do agree with Necroshea. There are a lot of "spilled milk" suits like this and it is just a temper tantrum. The ME3 suit is pretty much that in a nut shell. A bunch of but hurt nerds crying over a company whose writing ability has been dropping for years produced a bad ending (shocker *golf clap*)

However! This issue has become a plague on the games industry. There's a reason a company like EA can be voted worst company in America, and stabbing the consumer in the back is the main reason it happens.

I expect a company to overstate the case of their product. I expect Burger King to film the sexist damn burger some chef can put in front of a camera and say "our burgers taste as good as they look" and to find that the actual burger looks nothing like it did on TV. I expect a game maker to promise "amazing innovative gameplay" in some run of the mill CoD clone that isn't worth the silicon its stored on.

But I draw the line at Burger King advertisting a double bacon cheese burger and getting a bun with some sauce on it instead, no meat, no cheese, just sauce. Now, if I got to the manager and say that I am dissatisfied I will either A) get my money back, or B) be given what I actually ordered.

A game company on the other hand will wave my money in my face and ask me to buy the DLC pack that is being released the next week.

It has to stop. The industry is killing itself. EA has been stabbing itself in the foot for years. Activision is almost as hated as EA, and Capcom is making so many dead brained business decisions I question if that company is being run by college grads or kittens who wants cheezburgerz. The industry desperately needs a wake up call that things can't keep going in the direction they are going or it's all going to blow up in all our faces (and frankly this is true of many industries today, not just video games). YES Games Workshop THAT WAS DIRECTED AT YOU

**Soladrin**

Well, the main difference between this and your avarage bad game tantrum is simple.

You're run off the mill bad game will show some demo gameplay that happens to be one of the working parts of the game and probably the only good thing in it.

With those one they essentialy scripted an entire game that had nothing to do with the product for sale and hell, doesn't even run on the same engine anymore.

Actually this like what happened with Killzone 2, where you had the CGI trailer that was advertised as gameplay.

**Mr Hyena**

purplefood wrote:
It's not that the game sucked rather than they actively deceived people with a fake demo. fable may have promised and didn't deliver but not nearly to the degree of AvP...

Fabled misled people however with what would actually be in the game, plus Mass Effect 3's ending. Theres a ton of EA games which could be targets of similar lawsuits, along with THQ's shady behaviour in general...but thankfully they aren't around any more.

**Soladrin**

Mr Hyena wrote:
purplefood wrote:
It's not that the game sucked rather than they actively deceived people with a fake demo. fable may have promised and didn't deliver but not nearly to the degree of AvP...

Fabled misled people however with what would actually be in the game, plus Mass Effect 3's ending. Theres a ton of EA games which could be targets of similar lawsuits, along with THQ's shady behaviour in general...but thankfully they aren't around any more.

ME3 ending? Wat? You can't misrepresent a legitimate (but crappy) ending to a game if that's what the ending is.

**purplefood**

Mr Hyena wrote:
purplefood wrote:
It's not that the game sucked rather than they actively deceived people with a fake demo. fable may have promised and didn't deliver but not nearly to the degree of AvP...

Fabled misled people however with what would actually be in the game, plus Mass Effect 3's ending. Theres a ton of EA games which could be targets of similar lawsuits, along with THQ's shady behaviour in general...but thankfully they aren't around any more.

There's a difference with one guy saying stuff might be in a game and a game company creating a 10 minute video that they claim is a vertical slice of gameplay which then turns out to be not just slightly but entirely fraudulent. Mass Effect's ending isn't even nearly the same thing. It was an ending which people didn't like it wasn't as though Bioware said it would be something and it didn't, the ending merely didn't live up to expectation which is a shame but them's the breaks in that regard.

**Ahtman**

If nothing else hopefully this will make other developers pause in the future before they label video footage as 'actual gameplay'.

**LordofHats**

Actually this like what happened with Killzone 2, where you had the CGI trailer that was advertised as gameplay.

That's another issue that's been brought up in recent years and its not just Killzone 2 and it is dirty advertising and it is designed to deceive people (though I wouldn't consider such a thing suit worthy).

What happened with A:CM is a trailer advertised as actual gameplay, that was really solely designed to show off a game that was never going to be made while some backwater development team (Timegate) did all of Gearboxes work while Sega told everyone that Gearbox was making the game when Gearbox was really busy making Borderlands 2 and wasn't even paying attention to Timegate who were frankly not talented enough to make such a game.

Section 8: Prejudice (Time Gate's other title of recent years) was a decent buy because it was only $15. Aliens: Colonial Marines would have probably been worth $30, but instead they sold it full retail price and stuffed their fingers in their ears and pretended the game being released was the one they'd shown off at E3 years before.

That is false advertising and it shouldn't be allowed to happen.

**Talizvar**

This is similar to the movie industry:

They were trying to make as much money as possible on the initial rush of buyers before reviews of the game could be scored so the public could be warned appropriately.

I understand things have evolved from "pre-order" to "kickstarter" and something about a company getting my money first before I have seen the product is a serious "let the buyer beware" moment.

Too bad, other more diligent companies may lose out on pre-order financial relief due to this issue.

**SagesStone**

Necroshea wrote:
Publisher - "Hey consumer, this game is good. Here, you can buy it if you want."

Consumer - "Wow this game sucks, I'm suing you"

This is more accurate:
Publisher: Hey guise I'm making these cool new shirts you like them?
Consumer: Wow these are really nice shirts.
Reviewer: Yes these are fantastic... Hmm, feels like really high quality material and this print is excellent.
Publisher: Well better preorder them while you still can~!

*release day*
Consumer: WTF is this?
Reviewer: Yeah, you showed us these really extravagant shirts before. These are just $1 T-shirts with a crudely drawn alien on them, looks like sharpie...
Pubslisher: No these are the same shirts, maybe you're remembering them wrong...
Reviewer: Riiiiiigght... they clearly aren't the same ones you showed us before.
Consumer: OMFG THESE SHIRTS SUCK!
Reviewer: Yep they sure do.
Publisher: Nah these are the same shirts maybe it was just the lighting
Reviewer: No these are clearly different shirts, I'm going to go tweet everyone about it and apologise for recommending your shirts before.
Consumer2: This is false advertising!
Consumer3: BBB?
Consumer4: BBB?
Consumer5: Ima sue you for false advertising.

**LordofHats**

n0t_u wrote:
Necroshea wrote:
Publisher - "Hey consumer, this game is good. Here, you can buy it if you want."

Consumer - "Wow this game sucks, I'm suing you"

This is more accurate:
Publisher: Hey guise I'm making these cool new shirts you like them?
Consumer: Wow these are really nice shirts.
Reviewer: Yes these are fantastic... Hmm, feels like really high quality material and this print is excellent.
Publisher: Well better preorder them while you still can~!

*release day*
Consumer: WTF is this?
Reviewer: Yeah, you showed us these really extravagant shirts before. These are just $1 T-shirts with a crudely drawn alien on them, looks like sharpie...
Pubslisher: No these are the same shirts, maybe you're remembering them wrong...
Reviewer: Riiiiiigght... they clearly aren't the same ones you showed us before.
Consumer: OMFG THESE SHIRTS SUCK!
Reviewer: Yep they sure do.
Publisher: Nah these are the same shirts maybe it was just the lighting
Reviewer: No these are clearly different shirts, I'm going to go tweet everyone about it and apologise for recommending your shirts before.
Consumer2: This is false advertising!
Consumer3: BBB?
Consumer4: BBB?
Consumer5: Ima sue you for false advertising.

This is way better than my double bacon cheeseburger analogy XD That one just made me hungry.

**Squigsquasher**

If they should be suing anyone they should sue Timegate for screwing the game up. If Gearbox hadn't had to get Aliens: Colonial Marines finished by Timegate then it WOULD have resembled the demo. Unfortunately, Timegate completely ruined the entire thing, and when Gearbox got it back they had very little time to fix it, as Sega were getting fed up of the constant delays.

**LordofHats**

Squigsquasher wrote:
If they should be suing anyone they should sue Timegate for screwing the game up. If Gearbox hadn't had to get Aliens: Colonial Marines finished by Timegate then it WOULD have resembled the demo. Unfortunately, Timegate completely ruined the entire thing, and when Gearbox got it back they had very little time to fix it, as Sega were getting fed up of the constant delays.

Um no. Sega nor Gearbox ever even mentioned that Timegate was making the game.We didn't find out about it till after the release. Even the leaked rumors from a former Gearbox team member never mentioned Timegate was making the game.

Also what do you think Gearbox was doing while Timegate was making the game? They shoved it off to someone else so they could put all their resources into Borderlands 2. But that didn't stop them or Sega from telling everyone A:CM was being made by Gearbox or slapping Gearboxes logo onto the box even though they didn't make anything related to the game beyond the "actual gameplay" demo that isn't in the game.

Now, I'm open to the possibilty that the end result of A:CM was not what Gearbox or Sega wanted. Maybe they (for some god awful idiot reason) thought Timegate was up to the task. But when they got that product back, they had to have realized it wasn't up to snuff. That it was bland in every sense of the word (and that the story was atrociously bad) but they kept on lying and sold the game anyway. That's on them.

I know Sega and Gearbox have done everything they can to point their fingers and say "It's not our fault" but that's like George W. Bush walking into a crowd and saying "I didn't start the War in Iraq, Congress did." It might technically be true in a sense but its a half truth and we shouldn't just absolve them of responsibility especially when they were the ones promising us a 'WMD" of fun, not Timegate.

**Ouze**

I think we should leave Timegate out of this, by virtue of their name not appearing in the Demo Gameplay 10 Minutes of Lies Video.

The internal arguments between Sega, Timegate, and Gearbox will, I strongly suspect, be argued in other courtroom(s). In this case, however, it's Gearbox's name on the tin.

**LordofHats**

And frankly that's part of the false advertising. People's confidence was bostlered by the name 'Gearbox' being attached to the game's development. We know Gearbox can make a shooter and we know they can make a fun one. EDIT: i even said this exact thing in the old ACM thread here on Dakka, telling other posters I felt more secure in the games success because Gearbox was making it.

Turns out, not only as the initial trailer a lie, but all the hope people put into Gearbox was a lie because Gearbox hadn't made the game at all. Had the game been advertised as being made by Timegate from the get go I would have expected a subpar product, and naturally I suspect Sega knew this so they happily assured everyone Gearbox was making the game.