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.

'It is entirely possible that claiming class members will receive a full refund, making them more than whole,' claims the filing, 'Considering that they will also get to keep the video game.'

Sega must be regretting its involvement in Aliens: Colonial Marines, given that it could cost the company $1.25 million. That's the amount Sega has offered to settle the class action suit against it which, according to the filing, may leave the claiming class members better off than they were before. They'd get a full refund, and also get to keep the game.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/136776-Sega-Offers-to-Settle-Alien-Colonial-Marines-Class-Action-for-1-25M

I'm not too sure I would consider that being "better off than before", Sega.....

What's the deal with this? Why is there a CAS against sega?

 timetowaste85 wrote:
What's the deal with this? Why is there a CAS against sega?

It is a claim of false advertising after footage from the Aliens: Colonial Marines trailers and demos used to sell the game were found to never be in the game at all. I'm not just talking about the graphic fidelity, I mean whole sections of gameplay were put out as trailers and demos that were never in the final product.

And the final product was absolute trash. Contender with Superman 64 for one of the worst games ever made

Yeah, the game was advertised as a brilliant experience and looked amazing from every single official source, but it was a buggy, ugly and incredibly disappointing result that had no connection to what it was advertised as.

I consider myself lucky that I started the game without a gun pointing my finger with 999/0 ammo, couldn't shoot the nonexistent gun and each restart gave the same result. I returned it immediately, was glad I only rented it and never got to see the rest of the trainwreck.

Normally I don't like silly lawsuits but really, I hope this hurts the companies involved. Gearbox in particular since I haven't had a game of theirs that didn't fail completely at some point and I can not stand the quality that I've received in their products.

 SharkoutofWata wrote:


Normally I don't like silly lawsuits but really, I hope this hurts the companies involved. Gearbox in particular since I haven't had a game of theirs that didn't fail completely at some point and I can not stand the quality that I've received in their products.

Just curious, which products? I know they were brought in late game for Duke Nukem: Forever, but Borderlands, the Half Life stuff, and Brothers in Arms were rather well done ( or so I thought).

Duke Nukem and both Borderlands. Nukem was just bad, but both borderlands suffered game killing glitches and no possible way to recover. The first deleted save data twice (internal storage corrupted on a console) and the second dropped a mission critical item through the map making the campaign impossible to finish. I understand that there's a lot of bad luck but that's four out of four things with the gearbox name on it that have been failures (including Aliens). It's a company I actively avoid now.

I'm guess PC? I played both Borderlands extensively on the 360 and never had a single issue.

 curran12 wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
What's the deal with this? Why is there a CAS against sega?

It is a claim of false advertising after footage from the Aliens: Colonial Marines trailers and demos used to sell the game were found to never be in the game at all. I'm not just talking about the graphic fidelity, I mean whole sections of gameplay were put out as trailers and demos that were never in the final product.

Not to mention how often they talked about how it like it was the Real Deal, Gearbox Owner pretty much talked about it every chance he got.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 curran12 wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
What's the deal with this? Why is there a CAS against sega?

It is a claim of false advertising after footage from the Aliens: Colonial Marines trailers and demos used to sell the game were found to never be in the game at all. I'm not just talking about the graphic fidelity, I mean whole sections of gameplay were put out as trailers and demos that were never in the final product.

Not to mention how often they talked about how it like it was the Real Deal, Gearbox Owner pretty much talked about it every chance he got.

Randy Pitchford is a liar but a brilliant one.

“His lies were so exquisite I almost wept.”
― Dave Eggers,

 SharkoutofWata wrote:
Yeah, the game was advertised as a brilliant experience and looked amazing from every single official source, but it was a buggy, ugly and incredibly disappointing result that had no connection to what it was advertised as.

I consider myself lucky that I started the game without a gun pointing my finger with 999/0 ammo, couldn't shoot the nonexistent gun and each restart gave the same result. I returned it immediately, was glad I only rented it and never got to see the rest of the trainwreck.

Normally I don't like silly lawsuits but really, I hope this hurts the companies involved. Gearbox in particular since I haven't had a game of theirs that didn't fail completely at some point and I can not stand the quality that I've received in their products.

Maybe, just maybe, they will learn their lesson now that they saw they can't get away with it.

 Ahtman wrote:
I'm guess PC? I played both Borderlands extensively on the 360 and never had a single issue.

He's right about the loss of data: my Hunter lost all data on BL1, and he was at top level with all legendary gear. I quit BL1 because of it. Never had issues with 2. This happened on my 360.

 Ahtman wrote:
I'm guess PC? I played both Borderlands extensively on the 360 and never had a single issue.

Played BD1 on the 360, and BD1 and 2 on PC without any issues whatsoever. 86 Hours into BD1 on PC, and 106 hours into BD2.

I never played Colonial Marines, and damn glad I didn't...

But to slate all of gearbox' stuff because of it? Nah... Like many other's, I have played both Borderlands to completion at least twice on my iMac. The first one through Wineskin and the second through Steam, and never had a problem.. Lucky?

lol. Wasn't aware there was a lawsuit. Is it really that bad?

Have been thinking about picking it up recently, actually. Have they bothered patching it? Is it worth playing now at all?

The internet likes to exaggerate. It's not a superbad game, it just is very short and a far cry from what it was originally advertised as. I'd say it's easily worth the amount of money it costs now.
And I think we all know that Gearbox made some good games in the past. It's hard to assess what exactly happened, but from all I've heard they bit off more than they could chew when they took the contract, and apparently funnelled development resources away from Colonial Marines into their own baby, Borderlands. So, a bad developer? Not really, but it seems very dishonest. If I were a publisher, I'd think twice about working with them again.

And I think taking lawsuits as an indicator of a game's quality has become a rather unreliable approach ever since people tried to sue BioWare because they didn't like their storyline.

 Lynata wrote:
The internet likes to exaggerate. It's not a superbad game, it just is very short and a far cry from what it was originally advertised as. I'd say it's easily worth the amount of money it costs now.
And I think we all know that Gearbox made some good games in the past. It's hard to assess what exactly happened, but from all I've heard they bit off more than they could chew when they took the contract, and apparently funnelled development resources away from Colonial Marines into their own baby, Borderlands. So, a bad developer? Not really, but it seems very dishonest. If I were a publisher, I'd think twice about working with them again.

And I think taking lawsuits as an indicator of a game's quality has become a rather unreliable approach ever since people tried to sue BioWare because they didn't like their storyline.

You would think stealing resources and contracting it out to another company when you were contracted to create it in the first place would make a company 'bad'.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Lynata wrote:
The internet likes to exaggerate. It's not a superbad game, it just is very short and a far cry from what it was originally advertised as. I'd say it's easily worth the amount of money it costs now.
And I think we all know that Gearbox made some good games in the past. It's hard to assess what exactly happened, but from all I've heard they bit off more than they could chew when they took the contract, and apparently funnelled development resources away from Colonial Marines into their own baby, Borderlands. So, a bad developer? Not really, but it seems very dishonest. If I were a publisher, I'd think twice about working with them again.

And I think taking lawsuits as an indicator of a game's quality has become a rather unreliable approach ever since people tried to sue BioWare because they didn't like their storyline.

You would think stealing resources and contracting it out to another company when you were contracted to create it in the first place would make a company 'bad'.

Yeah, and I wouldn't advise anyone to spend a singel cent on it. Companies shouldn't be rewarded for this.

Why isn't Gearbox getting a kicking for this?

Personally I'm done with Gearbox. I played Borderlands and found it enjoyable at first. It's just too grindy and gets extremely dull rather quickly. The whole A:CM thing just put me right off them permanently.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:You would think stealing resources and contracting it out to another company when you were contracted to create it in the first place would make a company 'bad'.

Oh, I meant that purely from a "games quality" perspective. Their arguably bad management here doesn't negate the studio's potential.

But it's certainly good advice to wait for reviews for their next few games, just in case they pull something like this again.
Whether or not you'd want to "punish" the company for being a bad boy by not buying their games anymore in general is, of course, anyone's decision - though if we'd really be consequent here this would rule out a lot of products we use daily, and not just videogames. I kind of doubt there are a lot of people willing to do so ... but you can certainly factor it into your decision if you're considering to buy a game you're not sure is so awesome that you "really need it".

 Medium of Death wrote:
Why isn't Gearbox getting a kicking for this?

Personally I'm done with Gearbox. I played Borderlands and found it enjoyable at first. It's just too grindy and gets extremely dull rather quickly. The whole A:CM thing just put me right off them permanently.

Because their fans defend them vehemently and tried to play it off, despite this being a practice EA hasn't even done.

I bought the limited edition stupidly, however It was more for the figure than the game, I sold the game for stand-alone full price the day I got it (after a few hours gameplay.)

Basically meaning I paid a fraction of what I should have for the statue, which was arguably the best thing about the entire release.

Huh, this blows, I had no idea that when I was let down by a game I was due some sort of payout.

Not only that but I got rid of A:CM a day after I bought and beat it, should've held onto it and joined the plaintiff squad.

 Frankenberry wrote:
Huh, this blows, I had no idea that when I was let down by a game I was due some sort of payout.

Not only that but I got rid of A:CM a day after I bought and beat it, should've held onto it and joined the plaintiff squad.

While in most cases it isn't the case, in A:CM it was a blatant case of false advertisement, which does actually hold some water. This isn't a small 5% of the game being the ending; the entire game was doctored to look better than it actually was.

Did you actually play the game?

 Rysaer wrote:

Basically meaning I paid a fraction of what I should have for the statue, which was arguably the best thing about the entire release.

I got the same release for PS3 (I was honestly looking for ways to use my Colonial Marines patch on my uniform for awhile).. I gave the game one good play through, but that was about it.

 Frankenberry wrote:
Did you actually play the game?

I have at a friends, and what he says is entirely true.

Gearbox managed to make a showfloor demo that was more of a game then the actual released product. This isn't a controversial statement at all, it's a proven fact and now even settled in court that this entire game was a big sham.

I got it for 3 pounds.


Best comedy I've ever bought.

I still like the game, but do agree it was a far cry from what we saw.

Still, it got me a chance to play as a marine and also wield a smartgun (Granted in limited places).

Although I think they altered the colony layout a bit from the movie.

 Duce wrote:
Although I think they altered the colony layout a bit from the movie.

Aye, like completely rebuilding it.

After the ending of ALIENS there's no way that structure was even remotely intact.