[HEADING=3]On false advertising and games.[/HEADING]
Firstly, even if some practices are standard to the industry, it doesn't make them OK... It shows that the industry relies on deception to sell their products (see video at 49:40).
Secondly, the slippery slope argument (see video at 51:15) is not fully applicable here, 'cause the point is not if you like a feature or not (gameplay, story, sound, art), but rather if there was a false statement about that a feature. On A:CM the statement was that some features (smart AI, well done animations and ambiance) were going to be in the final game, which ultimately were not. Want to change the game? Fine, but do not let the consumer believe that major element was stripped out on development.
The important features in a game
Which feature should be deemed important? Well, it depends. What is a videogame but an interactive software design to cause an effect in the player (deliver an experience, challenge, a story). Does the lack of that feature make it so that there is no way to cause that effect expected? If so, it is a major feature. Take A:CM. It supposed to be challenging, to have a dense atmosphere. Bad programming destroyed those elements, essentials to the experience. It's like announcing a word processor software that doesn't let you save into files the work done...
However, let it be noted that if you don't like how the story ended, too bad, 'cause fondness is entirely subjective. The experience was delivered? You just didn't like it.
About the legal aspects of the suit
It's a grey area... One thing is to say that your product is the best, that a book has the "best story ever" even if the product is not all that great; this is acceptable. Another is to demonstrate one thing, and deliver another. 'A vacuum that can suck water, but it doesn't really...' kind of ordeal.
You need to prove five things to have a case on false advertisement:
[ol]
[li]A false statement of fact has been made about the advertiser's own or another person's goods, services, or commercial activity; [/li]
[li]The statement either deceives or has the potential to deceive a substantial portion of its targeted audience; [/li]
[li]The deception is also likely to affect the purchasing decisions of its audience;[/li]
[li]The advertising involves goods or services in interstate commerce; and [/li]
[li]The deception has either resulted in or is likely to result in injury to the plaintiff. [/li]
[/ol]
From those items, the weakest link is the number (3). However, IMO, there is no need for the plaintiff to prove that the deception is the sole cause of the purchase, but rather if it has affected the decision to purchase the game in any way. It doesn't matter if one of the reasons to buy the game was the IP (in divergence to what they said at 58:40).
The main questions to be awnsered are:
[ul]
[li]Does the preview constitutes proof that they implicitly advertised one product, which doesn't correspond to the final product?(item 1)[/li]
[li]Have you known that the game was badly programmed, in contrast to what was shown (it looked well programmed at the previews), would you have bought the game? (item 3)[/li]
[/ul]
In my opinion, false advertising in the game industry is a subject that must be better analyzed.
[HEADING=3]Concerning the dichotomy selling product v. providing service[/HEADING]
(see video at 57:40)
The industry doesn't "act" like they are providing a service (with some exceptions like MMO, or always online DRM). The law states that software, videogames included, are intellectual property (more like invention than books and movies), and the buyer of a game is purchasing a license to reproduce that software in their computers and consoles. Due its nature, being like inventions, you do not buy the code, 'cause the code can be easily copied and transmitted.
Nevertheless, with some MMO and always on DRM games (not to mention in-game purchase), there is also a service being provided: the game data hosting, to which access is need to play the game or access a feature.