BioWare "Falsely Advertised" Mass Effect 3

[Baconmonster723]

I don't want my money back, I don't want to sue them for false advertising, I don't want to single out Bioware. I just want the last 15 minutes of that game wiped from my memory. It was stellar up until that point. Give me back those 15 minutes and all will be as it was.

 

[anthony87]

Also, I do not mind who judges me.. for insults or worse- I still believe fighting over the ending is worth my time.

And if people put this much effort into solving real issues the world would be a better place.

I had a nice reply lined up for this but then I saw one in the same vein that was done much better so I'm just gonna go and steal it.

Oh great, another one of your kind of people. Needless bleeding hearts. The Britta Perry's of this world. "Don't complain about ANYTHING! Someone, somewhere, somehow is DYING or DEAD! Think about that! I'm socially aware because I realized that on a planet of 7 billion people, there might be someone, somewhere who might be worse off than me or you, so I can take a high ground and feel good about myself for pointing out to others that any and all complaints are void, because someone, somewhere has trumped it because they've got it worse!"

Luckily, from what I've seen, most people seem to grow up from that phase. Hopefully you will too.

 

[nasteypenguin]

I don't exactly like the whole mass effect controversy thing, but I think it's going to generate a lot more good than bad in the long term. What I don't like is the fact that some of the people who shout about how it's all entirely ridiculous, probably make the same remarks about how people don't do anything to show that companies are making easy choices - like continuous sequels, or generic fps remakes.

The scale at which this has gotten means that the companies have to take notice, and take into account what the consumers want more than they would normally. Whether you think this will cause an outcome for good or for bad, it doesn't matter that much - at least it will make an impact and I would rather the crowd have done something worthwhile than sit back and buy whatever was released.

This advertising business just helps my point; companies aren't working together internally anymore, each part is just going with what they've always done and expecting it will work because nothing has proven it to them otherwise.
Don't think about it as trying to force somebody into delivering what you want, more like giving someone who has lost direction a slap in the face to make them realise what was going on around them.

In a perfect world companies should only exist to please the consumer and regardless of how "realistic" your outlook on life is, people should still be working towards that ideal.

 

[Shia-Neko-Chan]

Wow. Appalling.

You know, I don't claim false advertisement whenever Nintendo claims they've made something new or when I buy a terrible game that claims it's fun on the back of the case. I don't know why this is even considered valid by anyone.

 

[X10Unit1]

Comments made in interviews and even full blown advertising campaigns should never be construed as promises. Why do any of us still do that? Haven't we had our expectations let down enough to realize we shouldn't believe what we're told until we get the game in our hands?

Guess not. Nerds gonna Rage, I spose.

Here is a concept: If you aren't going to do what you say, don't say it.

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

best way is to just be a cynic, dont believe the hype n never get your hopes up when promised "the moon on a stick"

 

[Wieke]

I would like the option, the chance at a happy ending. Or at least one with more Sweetness and slightly less Bitterness.

Annoying thing is (wel one of the annoying things) is that they proved they can do bitter sweet endings right. Some of the missions had damn bitter sweet endings. Especially curing the genophage if Mording is/was loyal, it managed to be both optimistic and depressing at the same time.

 

[Axyun]

I'm glad this stance was taken by the BBB. Whether it's medicine, cars or video games, the companies that provide products or services should not lie about them.

 

[webkilla]

I would like the option, the chance at a happy ending. Or at least one with more Sweetness and slightly less Bitterness.

Annoying thing is (wel one of the annoying things) is that they proved they can do bitter sweet endings right. Some of the missions had damn bitter sweet endings. Especially curing the genophage if Mording is/was loyal, it managed to be both optimistic and depressing at the same time.

that's what you get when the ending isn't peer reviewed - and instead is written by two guys, one of which have a mancruch on deep philosophical endings, which ends up having no connection to the rest of the plot

 

[Murmillos]

I'm not sure what teeth the BBB has... Other then its a small marginal shot into the mighty sails of EA-Ware. So they did justify what many people claimed (the ending was false advertising).. but not like the ending was the big deciding factor in buying the game.

I'm still royally pissed off at EA/BioWare. I'll still may get DA3.. but really PAX people, cheering for features that will be in DA3 that shouldn't have been cut for DA2 in the first place? Just another sign of the sad state of gaming. I'll be keeping tabs on the game as develops, but without joy or any excitement in doing so; nor will I be elastically in wanting to giving them my money for a collectors edition... I may get a normal copy, if I feel they have earned the right for me to want to play their game.

 

[Mournblade94]

I would like the option, the chance at a happy ending. Or at least one with more Sweetness and slightly less Bitterness.

Annoying thing is (wel one of the annoying things) is that they proved they can do bitter sweet endings right. Some of the missions had damn bitter sweet endings. Especially curing the genophage if Mording is/was loyal, it managed to be both optimistic and depressing at the same time.

that's what you get when the ending isn't peer reviewed - and instead is written by two guys, one of which have a mancruch on deep philosophical endings, which ends up having no connection to the rest of the plot

Agreed. Also if you are going to make the deep philosophical ending you need more than sophomoric knowledge about philosophy. If the indoctrination ending is infact intentional I take it back. The philosophy of the ending has been seen before. And before. And before. m night shamaln does it better.

And he sucks at it.

 

[SweetLiquidSnake]

I've done it.... I'm stumbled upon a Masshole nest.... They're everywhere! Quick! Grab your flame shield and some tylenol because the amount of whining is gonna give you a migraine!

 

[Mournblade94]

I've done it.... I'm stumbled upon a Masshole nest.... They're everywhere! Quick! Grab your flame shield and some tylenol because the amount of whining is gonna give you a migraine!

The longer you stay in here the more intense the migraine. You should probably just ignore the thread.

So easy.

Now you don't have to be bothered.

 

[Wieke]

I would like the option, the chance at a happy ending. Or at least one with more Sweetness and slightly less Bitterness.

Annoying thing is (wel one of the annoying things) is that they proved they can do bitter sweet endings right. Some of the missions had damn bitter sweet endings. Especially curing the genophage if Mording is/was loyal, it managed to be both optimistic and depressing at the same time.

that's what you get when the ending isn't peer reviewed - and instead is written by two guys, one of which have a mancruch on deep philosophical endings, which ends up having no connection to the rest of the plot

Agreed. Also if you are going to make the deep philosophical ending you need more than sophomoric knowledge about philosophy. If the indoctrination ending is infact intentional I take it back. The philosophy of the ending has been seen before. And before. And before. m night shamaln does it better.

And he sucks at it.

Yeah those leaks did explain a lot.

In my opinion it also shows how they should have attempted to correct the ending. Have the entire writing team peer review it and apply corrections as needed (maybe scrap the whole thing if it is deemed salvageable). But this "extended cut" thing, erhm, I'll reserve my judgement for when I see it but I doubt they can explain away some of our grievances.

Hopefully the industry will learn not to promise what they can not deliver. And hopefully the game-journalist learn consider the business aspects of the industry, like the guys at Forbes do , and not belittle fans with genuine grievances.

 

[viranimus]

We disagree on a fundamental point. You believe that any sort of promotion that is not strictly paid-for advertising does not count as promotion.

I, and the U.S. advertising regulatory system (from what I can understand), believe otherwise.

Pointless to argue further, really.

I could persist in presenting a wealth of examples that (in my opinion) constitute examples of misleading promotion and advertising, but if you don't believe them to constitute advertising to begin with, there's no point.

Spoiler: I would have to ask you expand your understanding of the definitions of advertising regulations then

?widespread promotional activities directed to the public-at-large? and that mere ?personal solicitations are not advertising.

To establish that an advertisement is false, a plaintiff must prove ALL five things:
(1) a false statement of fact has been made about the advertiser's own or another person's goods, services, or commercial activity;

(2) the statement either deceives or has the potential to deceive a substantial portion of its targeted audience;

(3) the deception is also likely to affect the purchasing decisions of its audience;

(4) the advertising involves goods or services in interstate commerce; and

(5) the deception has either resulted in or is likely to result in injury to the plaintiff. The most heavily weighed factor is the advertisement's potential to injure a customer. The injury is usually attributed to money the consumer lost through a purchase that would not have been made had the advertisement not been misleading. False statements can be defined in two ways: those that are false on their face and those that are implicitly false.

Spoiler: Responsive ad regulation

As you see, tidbits mined from biowares forums do not constitute widespread or substantial portions of the target audience because only a small portion of the target audience would have done that. Quotes from obscure forum posts are deemed not as advertisement. Large portions of people who will buy a game actually dont do research on the product before purchase. They do not visit the developers forums, they do not read gamestops proprietary magazine as a trusted source (or why would they?) to make the decision to buy the product. Simply put, References from the bioware forums, as well as interviews from one proprietary and extremely biased magazine. Most people had made up their mind to buy the game regardless of these factors and did not even realize these elements existed before the game was released

Spoiler: countdown

1: No actual statement of fact in advertisement had been made.
2: The statements that are considered as false are not statements that widely reached the audience (IE forum posts) or are misinterpreted by the reader to imply intention (casey article/ME3 "outcome" reference)
3: The statements on forums were not widely exposed to the core audience of the game as most people had no reason to read the bioware forum data mining for every tidbit of data on the game.
4: Got me there.
5: No damage was done to the customer by actual or perceived claims made on the game as the user was given exactly what actual advertisements promised. Such as 50+ hours of gameplay, involved and epic storyline, etc At no time was an actual advertisement specifically regarding the ending of the game. The only references that are specific to the ending of the game come from Bioware forum posts which do not constitute widespread exposure to the target audience before the release of the game and as such not advertisements or the one often quoted but clearly interpretation GI interview with Casey Hudson that can be interpreted in ways other than what the consensus of the "false advertising" claimants make.

Spoiler: Summation

Now, I have illustrated how both what is being cited is not actually advertisement, as well as illustrated how in what is classified as advertisement no false claim was made. I have illustrated this under logical explanations, cited exact examples of proof and dismissed what is not to be considered under the definition of the laws by which it would be determined and governed. So the point here is to clear up incorrect assumptions and misunderstandings of the law that are giving people the wrong idea of the nature of the validity of this claim. It is not a matter of belief or opinion it is clearly defined as legal precedent that any attorney handling this in a court of law would immediately point to. Its not a matter of a differing opinion on fundamental points because the points are clearly defined through historical precedent. Its not a matter of being closed minded Its a matter of it being an open and shut case.

Simply put there is no legal ground for the claim of false advertisement to stand on. Its simply unsubstantiated. If this claim somehow makes it to an actual court it will quickly be dismissed with Attorneys ripping the claim to shreds easier than I have.

 

[samaugsch]

But... but... but... artistic integrity! Would someone PLEASE think of the artistic integrity?!

Spoiler

That was a joke.

I see what you did there.

On-topic: I was thinking the same thing about the false advertising bit. I was thinking, "Man, I'm surprised they haven't gotten sued yet, considering everyone's reactions."

 

[samaugsch]

If this works, I also want to sue the makers of Dead Island for saying it was local co-op when it isn't. Dicks. Wouldn't have brought that otherwise.

[sarcasm]Local co-op is so last decade.[/sarcasm]

 

[Seanfall]

I would like the option, the chance at a happy ending. Or at least one with more Sweetness and slightly less Bitterness.

Annoying thing is (wel one of the annoying things) is that they proved they can do bitter sweet endings right. Some of the missions had damn bitter sweet endings. Especially curing the genophage if Mording is/was loyal, it managed to be both optimistic and depressing at the same time.

That was one of my favorite missions. I could go on and on about Mordin's character. But I'll just say that not only his death but the others of your squad who die are just as bitter sweet. Good bittersweet I mean. Hell Mordin and Thane actually brought me to tears, not man tears either. Which is the ending is so bad in comparison....when they prove they have the ability to stir deep emotion and choose not too.

 

[mfeff]

-snip-

Unfortunately, as it has been pointed out... if Casey Hudson promised a gold brick in every box of ME 3... but there was no agreement between parties... then it is nothing but some shit he said.

Did he lie?

Sure.

Is he liable for the lie?

Nope. Not in the slightest.

The advertisement on the website is the advertisement.

Simply because an incorrect statement is made a million times doesn't make it any less incorrect.

I'm taking the liberty to post a legal definition of the U.S' interpretation of False Advertising:

"Any advertising or promotion that misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities or geographic origin of goods, services or commercial activities" (Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1125(a)).
.

Ah Ha! Nice post again!

So the next question is, to define the "to what extent" or the "limit" of the liability. For every Casey Hudson statement one way, one may find another statement that may be used in our out of context that countermands the previous one.

That being said, as I mentioned several post before... Art or not, is nonsense for the masses to discuss. At the end of the day it is software, plain and simple. Software typically, simply has to "run", "execute", or "start".

Remember Sword of the Stars II? I sure do.

Clearly it does this. Now as far as the liable, what is the penalty? What are the punitive damages? Further Promotional materials are not generally suitable for sale in the retail market. That is to say, pre-release hype is generally not considered legally binding with respect to a final product. To "be liable" one would seemingly have to be promoting a product that is "held out for purchase".

This is why there are "kick-starters", and "crowed funding" schemes. Retailers do not like to handle transactions for products that have not been "officially commercially released".

Mind you the consumer confidence is shattered, the "game journalist" look like a bunch of mooks on the take... but so what? I am not sure there is a single EA/Bioware account "post release" quantifying or restating anything from the promotional material as a "fact" in the retail product.

Individual retailers have certainly responded, Amazon issuing returns for one, local stores doing the same here and there. EA/Bioware? They could give a shit less, cause as far as a legal "exposure" there is none. It's one of the reasons three well-to-do doctor's started a software company making video games to begin with. It's a "thing" that prints money.

Should there be laws? Maybe, but market forces will work to spite any legal enforcement.

As I said, Pre-Release promotion, and Promotion... two very different things. Is it shady? Sure. Is it "Illegal" nope... not in the slightest.

 

[Carne]

I don't exactly like the whole mass effect controversy thing, but I think it's going to generate a lot more good than bad in the long term. What I don't like is the fact that some the people who shout about how it's all entirely ridiculous, probably make the same remarks about how people don't do anything to show that companies are making easy choices - like continuous sequels, or generic fps remakes.

Just part of being a fanboy. No one's plight is bad except your own. Many bashers of MERetakers probably have acted the exact same way at some point in time. Maybe about Jericho, Firely, Warhammer or any other franchise that has been cancelled or messed up. They cry foul, but when someone else does about something that they aren't as invested in it's entitlement.