Gamer Sues Sony Over Killzone Multiplayer 1080p Claims

Karloff

New member
Oct 19, 2009
6,474
0
0
Gamer Sues Sony Over Killzone Multiplayer 1080p Claims


Douglas Ladore seeks damages for anyone who bought Killzone: Shadow Fall under 'false pretenses.'

When Sony released Killzone: Shadow Fall [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/8696-Killzone-Shadow-Fall] some gamers were disappointed that its multiplayer mode output was, at best, variable, and certainly not the 1920x1080 standard they were expecting. Douglas Ladore has taken his disappointment to California's District Court and filed a class action against Sony, seeking damages for those who bought the game under what he describes as "false pretenses."

The suit seeks in excess of $5 million, to "restore to Class members any money acquired by means of false advertising (restitution)" as well as cover legal fees. In essence, Ladore's looking to take every dime Sony made from Killzone: Shadow Fall as well as damages, preferably exemplary damages if it can be proven that Sony's conduct as willful.

Sony's position, as reiterated in a March blog post [http://www.killzone.com/en_GB/blog/news/2014-03-06_regarding-killzone-shadow-fall-and-1080p.html], is that both single and multiplayer output in 1080p, as promised. However multiplayer uses what Sony describes as "temporal projection," utilizing multiple lower-resolution frames effectively stitched together to create the 1080p effect, achieving "subjectively similar" results. Many gamers, Ladore included, found the result unacceptably blurry.

"We recognize the community's degree of investment on this matter, and that the conventional terminology used before may be too vague to effectively convey what's going on under the hood," said Sony in its blog post. "As such we will do our best to be more precise with our language in the future."

The class action specifically references a March Eurogamer article [http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-in-theory-1080p30-or-720p60] on graphic performance, which did point out the Killzone issue, though at the time Eurogamer wasn't sure what the cause was. The article goes on to warn that achieving an actual 1080p performance isn't as straightforward as many gamers believe.

Anyone seeking the full text of the class action can find it here [http://ia902304.us.archive.org/23/items/gov.uscourts.cand.279671/gov.uscourts.cand.279671.1.0.pdf].

Source: Ars Technica [http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/08/california-man-sues-sony-over-killzones-1080p-graphics-claims/]


Permalink
 

major_chaos

Ruining videogames
Feb 3, 2011
1,314
0
0
I'm not sure what is more sad, this pointless moronic scam of a suit, or the fact that I bet some people here are on the guy's side just because "gotta stick it to the man, man!!!".
 

tzimize

New member
Mar 1, 2010
2,391
0
0
Good luck, I hope he succeeds though I have my doubts. Sonys lawyers will bury him I bet.

While I normally scoff at the low bar for lawsuits in the states, I applaud this effort and hope that it can contribute to teach companies not to bullshit their customers.
 

BeerTent

Resident Furry Pimp
May 8, 2011
1,167
0
0
While I would normally say 'Jesus Christ States' I recently watched a documentary, and now I'm thinking back to my time in court. There really is no such thing as a frivolous lawsuit. An action like this changes your life. What this man is doing is extreme. There is no 'Lawsuit Lottery.' He is doing the right thing.

Companies need to be held accountable for their lies. If Sony promised true 1080p resolution for their game and didn't deliver, then rock on buddy! Take them for all their worth. Hell, take them for a bit more. Sony can take the hit. Let's hope it's not in a state with an arbitrary cap on damages.

Also, for those who'd immediately disagree with me on the "No such thing as Frivolous Lawsuit" bit... Get educated. Look up "Hot Coffee Documentary" on youtube. It's freely available.
 

Andy Shandy

Fucked if I know
Jun 7, 2010
4,797
0
0
If what the lawsuit claims is correct, then I hope it succeeds, no matter how petty it may seem. Hopefully, it would teach companies not to falsely advertise their games.
 

tdylan

New member
Jun 17, 2011
381
0
0
major_chaos said:
I'm not sure what is more sad, this pointless moronic scam of a suit, or the fact that I bet some people here are on the guy's side just because "gotta stick it to the man, man!!!".
I'm currently involved in such a lawsuit based on a supplement company allegedly falsifying the protein content of their whey protein supplement. I happened across it, thought "What? I've been using that stuff since 2011!" called up the attorney, and sent him my receipts, as well as pictures of the UPCs of the bottles currently sitting in my house. I bought their product, instead of their competitors, because they told me it was something that it, allegedly, is not. Now, I've been told that such lawsuits don't amount to much for the plaintiffs, because any judgement issued are spread across so many plaintiffs that you end up with a $1 per person, or so. Also, I've heard that the law firms involved usually end up screwing the plaintiffs by throwing on "fees and expenses" which result in them receiving most of any money attained, but do I not have the right to sue the company that only received my money because of false advertising?

Arguably, people shelled out money for a PS4, and the PS4 exclusive game in part due to the promise of what the game had to offer. And if they knew that it wouldn't offer that, they may have spend their money elsewhere, or not at all. I think you have every right to sue when facts have been misrepresented.
 

Velociferocks

New member
Jul 20, 2009
94
0
0
While I most certainly think that Sony and Guerilla should not get off this false advertising thing with no consequences (nor any other company), I don't think giving some schmucks 5 million will make anything different. We will still get alien: colonial marines and it's ilk.
 

Ratty

New member
Jan 21, 2014
848
0
0
While I always support (trying to) making companies answer for blatantly false advertising, I don't expect this to go anywhere. I just hope when this case falls on its face it doesn't set any precedent that helps more serious abuses of "subjectively equivalent" advertising to slide by.
 

Karloff

New member
Oct 19, 2009
6,474
0
0
tdylan said:
major_chaos said:
I'm not sure what is more sad, this pointless moronic scam of a suit, or the fact that I bet some people here are on the guy's side just because "gotta stick it to the man, man!!!".
I'm currently involved in such a lawsuit based on a supplement company allegedly falsifying the protein content of their whey protein supplement. I happened across it, thought "What? I've been using that stuff since 2011!" called up the attorney, and sent him my receipts, as well as pictures of the UPCs of the bottles currently sitting in my house. I bought their product, instead of their competitors, because they told me it was something that it, allegedly, is not. Now, I've been told that such lawsuits don't amount to much for the plaintiffs, because any judgement issued are spread across so many plaintiffs that you end up with a $1 per person, or so. Also, I've heard that the law firms involved usually end up screwing the plaintiffs by throwing on "fees and expenses" which result in them receiving most of any money attained, but do I not have the right to sue the company that only received my money because of false advertising?

Arguably, people shelled out money for a PS4, and the PS4 exclusive game in part due to the promise of what the game had to offer. And if they knew that it wouldn't offer that, they may have spend their money elsewhere, or not at all. I think you have every right to sue when facts have been misrepresented.
What brand of protein was it? How did you find out that it was'nt what it said on the tub?
 
Apr 5, 2008
3,736
0
0
However multiplayer uses what Sony describes as "temporal projection," utilizing multiple lower-resolution frames effectively stitched together to create the 1080p effect
I find this incredibly amusing. The 1080p effect indeed! How tragic that the new consoles have to resort to tricks and subjective effects, particularly in light of audacious claims about the experience. Is the hardware incapable? Is it too new? Are the developers unable to optimise properly? Tricks were the domain of the last, long in the tooth generation where devs had to use any and every trick they could to get something new out of 2005 hardware.

I know people won't like to hear it, but I'll just say "PC" and be done with it.
 

Kargathia

New member
Jul 16, 2009
1,657
0
0
major_chaos said:
I'm not sure what is more sad, this pointless moronic scam of a suit, or the fact that I bet some people here are on the guy's side just because "gotta stick it to the man, man!!!".
While it's not something I'd sue over, describing it as a "pointless moronic scam of a suit" is a bit much - especially since the gaming industry has been skirting the edges of blatantly false advertising for quite a while now.
 

Karloff

New member
Oct 19, 2009
6,474
0
0
Wasn't there another thing like this with Street Fighter X Tekken not having online team battles on 360 or something? It was falsely advertised in the manual?

I doubt the lawsuit will pull through, but its annoying when things are falsely advertised in games, especially when its something that was actually wanted.
 

XenoScifi

New member
Dec 30, 2013
143
0
0
To me the right thing would be for Sony to just publicly announce they had some wording issues with the 1080p claim, reiterate the way their games are being rendered to give consumers the feel of 1080p and offer a refund for those who want it.

Drop the lawsuit, fix the wrong and come out on top as somewhat of a good guy if you are Sony. At most you may get a few thousand wanting their money back for the game.

Happy world, happy people, can't we all just get along so on and so forth.
 

JarinArenos

New member
Jan 31, 2012
556
0
0
Kargathia said:
major_chaos said:
I'm not sure what is more sad, this pointless moronic scam of a suit, or the fact that I bet some people here are on the guy's side just because "gotta stick it to the man, man!!!".
While it's not something I'd sue over, describing it as a "pointless moronic scam of a suit" is a bit much - especially since the gaming industry has been skirting the edges of blatantly false advertising for quite a while now.
That's basically my opinion here. The lawsuit seems frivolous on first glance, but anything that stops the shitty, shitty advertising lies the AAA games industry has been pumping out over recent years can only be a good thing in my book.
 

Vivi22

New member
Aug 22, 2010
2,300
0
0
major_chaos said:
I'm not sure what is more sad, this pointless moronic scam of a suit, or the fact that I bet some people here are on the guy's side just because "gotta stick it to the man, man!!!".
Not sure how a lawsuit which takes a gaming company to task for false advertising is a "pointless moronic scam of a suit."

Game companies have been doing everything from frequently toeing the false advertising line to outright lying in some cases for years. They absolutely should be held accountable when they get caught and a lawsuit is one way to do that. Calling it sad to support the idea of calling dishonest companies on their bullshit is absurd.
 

Elijin

Elite Member
Legacy
May 10, 2020
1,695
474
88
If they were asking for their money back, I would totally be on board.

But 5 million in damages? Nope, you're just being greedy assholes.
 

EyeReaper

New member
Aug 17, 2011
859
0
0
So wait, this guy wants to sue for 5 mil. and upwards over a blurry screen on a video game?

Now, I know false advertising is a bad thing and all, and I know legal fees can get pretty hefty in cases like this, but isn't that a bit much? Basically what I'm asking is, if this guy wins, does he get all this money, or will it be distributed to everyone who bought the game? Cuz, if he gets the cash... doesn't that mean he'll be profiting from all the saps who fell victim to the advertisements?

Of course, most of my law knowledge comes from buddy cop movies, so If I'm talking out of my ass, just ignore my comment.
 

Scorpid

New member
Jul 24, 2011
814
0
0
I hope he wins this lawsuit. Not because blurry video games are such a tragedy but because publishers blatantly lying to their customers has become far too common. If he wins this it could open up publishers to more lawsuits (at least in California) for similar reasons. So go get em!
 

Scorpid

New member
Jul 24, 2011
814
0
0
oggebogge91 said:
While I most certainly think that Sony and Guerilla should not get off this false advertising thing with no consequences (nor any other company), I don't think giving some schmucks 5 million will make anything different. We will still get alien: colonial marines and it's ilk.
IF he wins this it becomes easier to sue over games like Aliens:CM. Wouldn't that be nice?
 

major_chaos

Ruining videogames
Feb 3, 2011
1,314
0
0
Vivi22 said:
Not sure how a lawsuit which takes a gaming company to task for false advertising is a "pointless moronic scam of a suit."

Game companies have been doing everything from frequently toeing the false advertising line to outright lying in some cases for years. They absolutely should be held accountable when they get caught and a lawsuit is one way to do that. Calling it sad to support the idea of calling dishonest companies on their bullshit is absurd.
Saying that Sony should lose every penny they made off a massive project over a graphics technicality that the guy who started this probably didn't even know about till he read the Eurogamer article doesn't strike you as a tiny bit batshit fucking insane? This isn't like Sony got caught in some massive scandalous deception, its a a wording quibble.
tdylan said:
Arguably, people shelled out money for a PS4, and the PS4 exclusive game in part due to the promise of what the game had to offer. And if they knew that it wouldn't offer that, they may have spend their money elsewhere, or not at all. I think you have every right to sue when facts have been misrepresented.
If you bought a game solely because OMG1080p and feel the need to sue for 5mil because it was only kinda sorta 1080p my sympathy for you is totally nonexistent. (that was a general statement, not aimed at you personally)
Kargathia said:
skirting the edges of blatantly false advertising for quite a while now.
All advertising does, its practically the point. Has been for as long as I can remember, and it was TV, not videogames that set the standard. If someone actually believes that any advertising is 100% true they are at the top of the "at risk to be scammed" list.
 

Callate

New member
Dec 5, 2008
5,118
0
0
*winces* This console generation is just going to be fun, fun, fun, all the way around, isn't it...
 

Denamic

New member
Aug 19, 2009
3,804
0
0
'1080p' only refers to the output format. Doesn't matter if it's 320x240 upscaled to 1080p, it's still 1080p. It does not refer to the actual internal resolution of the game, no matter how much people like to use it as such.
 

Big_Boss_Mantis

New member
May 28, 2012
160
0
0
Look, I am all against false advertising, and I think companies should pay when they engage in anti-consumer tatics.

But, gee, there is really ANY importance that the multiplayer is not on native 1080p if the system is, indeed, emulating it?!
"Many gamers, Ladore included, found the result unacceptably blurry." What I heard is "many crybabies ended up crying because they wanted their pacifiers corn-flower-blue and they got it light-cerulean".

If I was Sony's lawyer (waiting for your call, Kaz) I would advise them to hurry up and release a patch that made the multiplayer NATIVE 1080 and made the game stutter like a husband meeting his wife in the exit of the whorehouse.
And I would make it optional, so that the players could still play the "blurry" version if they wanted to.
And I would call the optional locked 1080p resolution the "Ladore crybaby mode". (well, not that last one because it would cause an PR nightmare)

YES, Sony could have worded it better, but I don't find what they said false advertising. (it would be another thing if the game was fixed at 720p)
They said 1080p. They delivered 1080p. If the players didn't liked their 1080p, well, though stuff... Don't buy more games from that studio.

I bought (highly discounted) Soul Sacrifice for the Vita and found it painfully bad. By the way, the same happened with Killzone Mercenary, which was incredibly dull.
Should I take them to court for making a bad game and advertising it as a good one?
 

Remus

Reprogrammed Spambot
Nov 24, 2012
1,698
0
0
tdylan said:
major_chaos said:
I'm not sure what is more sad, this pointless moronic scam of a suit, or the fact that I bet some people here are on the guy's side just because "gotta stick it to the man, man!!!".
I'm currently involved in such a lawsuit based on a supplement company allegedly falsifying the protein content of their whey protein supplement. I happened across it, thought "What? I've been using that stuff since 2011!" called up the attorney, and sent him my receipts, as well as pictures of the UPCs of the bottles currently sitting in my house. I bought their product, instead of their competitors, because they told me it was something that it, allegedly, is not. Now, I've been told that such lawsuits don't amount to much for the plaintiffs, because any judgement issued are spread across so many plaintiffs that you end up with a $1 per person, or so. Also, I've heard that the law firms involved usually end up screwing the plaintiffs by throwing on "fees and expenses" which result in them receiving most of any money attained, but do I not have the right to sue the company that only received my money because of false advertising?

Arguably, people shelled out money for a PS4, and the PS4 exclusive game in part due to the promise of what the game had to offer. And if they knew that it wouldn't offer that, they may have spend their money elsewhere, or not at all. I think you have every right to sue when facts have been misrepresented.
I guess it varies from suit to suit. In the one class action I was party to (against Wal-Mart) I received just over $500, a bit more than I would've earned from 2 weeks pay when I was working there. Wasn't huge but not small either. For the damages that the suit was about and the paperwork I filed, I had expected far less.

On topic - I'm still using my little 29" 720p Samsung from 2007. It's never done me wrong and I haven't really had the money to upgrade to 1080p. My PS4 games look beautiful on it. At a certain point people can become too obsessed with graphic fidelity to just shut up and enjoy their game. So that's my advice. Does it play well? Is it fun? Are the FPS over 30? If so, shut up and play.
 

Kargathia

New member
Jul 16, 2009
1,657
0
0
major_chaos said:
Kargathia said:
skirting the edges of blatantly false advertising for quite a while now.
All advertising does, its practically the point. Has been for as long as I can remember, and it was TV, not videogames that set the standard. If someone actually believes that any advertising is 100% true they are at the top of the "at risk to be scammed" list.
You may have slightly missed the point here. Advertising indeed is meant to present its product in as positive a light as possible.
However, there is a line between showcasing positively, and outright lying about your product, and the gaming industry has, on multiple occasions brushed so close past the latter that it'd take a lawyer to explain the difference.

Off the top off my head:

- Aliens: Colonial Marines
- Watch_Dogs "E3 graphics settings"
- heavily suggesting pre-rendered trailers are ingame footage (too many to name)

Are they liable to lose all profit from the latest iteration of Killzone? Probably not. Should the US equivalent of the Advertising Standards Commission have called bullshit years ago? Yes, they should have.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,760
0
0
major_chaos said:
I'm not sure what is more sad, this pointless moronic scam of a suit, or the fact that I bet some people here are on the guy's side just because "gotta stick it to the man, man!!!".
I knooooow, right? Why should a gamer feel entitled to a game that is as it was claimed to be?

This has to be, like, the lamest reason for a lawsuit ever. What a scam.

Vivi22 said:
Not sure how a lawsuit which takes a gaming company to task for false advertising is a "pointless moronic scam of a suit."
Well, it's a free market. If the consumer didn't like being lied to, they could just not buy. Oh, sure, some people might say that they had no way to effectively determine such status, but that's just lazy.

Elijin said:
If they were asking for their money back, I would totally be on board.

But 5 million in damages? Nope, you're just being greedy assholes.
5 mill for restitution to all members of the class-action suit and legal fees.

Do you honestly think any one person (well, lawyers aside) will see any significant portion of that money? Without factoring legal fees, that's about seven bucks per US customer (assuming physical sales only, mind, so it's probably at least somewhat less). All things considered, do you still think they're greedy assholes?
 

EHKOS

Madness to my Methods
Feb 28, 2010
4,815
0
0
It's a small problem, but the principle behind it...mmmm. Not sure where I stand on this one. I love Sony, so that may be part of it.
 

Elijin

Elite Member
Legacy
May 10, 2020
1,695
474
88
If your figures are accurate, then it just shifts the class action to letting the lawyers pad their pockets with everyones money, which is a shame.

Would rather see a more limited action which resulted in refunds available, but then I have no idea how the US legal system works.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,760
0
0
Big_Boss_Mantis said:
What I heard is "many crybabies ended up crying because they wanted their pacifiers corn-flower-blue and they got it light-cerulean".
Have you floated this past PC users? Because they're already complaining about games not having 4K support when not even advertised as 4K.
 

Fifty-One

New member
Sep 13, 2010
123
0
0
Good. Hold these companies accountable. As for 5 million dollars, if you don't throw a big number at these companies they won't change their tune. They probably won't even change their tune at 5 million dollars either.
 

The Grim Ace

New member
May 20, 2010
483
0
0
major_chaos said:
You do realize that the 5 million he's seeking wouldn't go towards him alone, he's filing it as a class action lawsuit, he's probably getting 50 cents off of that if even that much as the judgment would be spread to his representatives and the class as a whole. The class in this case seems to be anyone who bought Killzone which, honestly, is a wonky claim since I don't think everyone buying it was there for true 1080p but, at the same time, false advertisement is false advertisement. The only thing that sends a message better than voting with your wallet is defeating a company in court as that can set a precedent.

The more interesting part of this case is how the judge will weigh the PSN EULA in all of this, since it removes the option for the end user to file a class action lawsuit against Sony. That could probably destroy this case as soon as it enters court.

So good effort, I guess.
 

tdylan

New member
Jun 17, 2011
381
0
0
Hixy said:
What brand of protein was it? How did you find out that it was'nt what it said on the tub?
The brand is Body Fortress. I happened across a video on youtube of a supplement distributor talking about it. The guy can be a little off putting, so I won't link to the video, but here's a link to an article about it:

http://tinyurl.com/qzz2uqz

OT: The message to Sony and the like needs to be "quit false advertising, or you're gonna have to answer for it in the only way you respect - paying money."
 

Rozalia1

New member
Mar 1, 2014
1,095
0
0
There is no hope in this winning, and is no grand cause either. Its resolution, graphics people in a shooter of all things. Don't be a mark and actually care so greatly about such things.
 

Karloff

New member
Oct 19, 2009
6,474
0
0
Its false advertisement tthat was used only to hide how pathetic the PS4's hardware actually is.
I am all for him. Never lie on things that can be measured (and WILL be measured). NEVER.
So I hope he wins.
 

Mr_Spanky

New member
Jun 1, 2012
152
0
0
major_chaos said:
Vivi22 said:
Not sure how a lawsuit which takes a gaming company to task for false advertising is a "pointless moronic scam of a suit."Game companies have been doing everything from frequently toeing the false advertising line to outright lying in some cases for years. They absolutely should be held accountable when they get caught and a lawsuit is one way to do that. Calling it sad to support the idea of calling dishonest companies on their bullshit is absurd.
Saying that Sony should lose every penny they made off a massive project over a graphics technicality that the guy who started this probably didn't even know about till he read the Eurogamer article doesn't strike you as a tiny bit batshit fucking insane? This isn't like Sony got caught in some massive scandalous deception, its a a wording quibble.
Who's saying that Sony will lose every penny? 5 million dollars is definitely not every penny. And I don't know if you've noticed but "wording quibbles" are pretty goddamn important in the law.

tdylan said:
Arguably, people shelled out money for a PS4, and the PS4 exclusive game in part due to the promise of what the game had to offer. And if they knew that it wouldn't offer that, they may have spend their money elsewhere, or not at all. I think you have every right to sue when facts have been misrepresented.
If you bought a game solely because OMG1080p and feel the need to sue for 5mil because it was only kinda sorta 1080p my sympathy for you is totally nonexistent. (that was a general statement, not aimed at you personally)
Your sympathy levels or lack of them are not relevant. The law does not work on sympathy (or at least I fucking hope not). It's a set of rules and when someone or something breaks those rules they are (in theory at least) held accountable for that. The purpose of such a trial would be to ascertain whether or not the code of law has, in fact, been breached

Kargathia said:
skirting the edges of blatantly false advertising for quite a while now.
All advertising does, its practically the point. Has been for as long as I can remember, and it was TV, not videogames that set the standard. If someone actually believes that any advertising is 100% true they are at the top of the "at risk to be scammed" list.
This is a false comparison. What TV advertising does is to try and sell impressions, lifestyles and such but without actually saying that they are. When did you last see a TV advert that said anything factually untrue? You may have to read the small print a couple times but it IS there. But something like this is (arguably at least - that what the law-suit would be for) the same kind of case that forced Carlsberg to change their slogan from "The best beer in the world" to "Probably the best beer in the world".

You can't sue someone for having an opinion or a theory. If Killzone had "the possibility of supporting 1080p resolutions" according to devs etc then there would be no case. But saying it WILL and then not coming up with the goods . . . well thats at least questionable. Certainly imo raises it above the level of morons and scammers.
 

Ishigami

New member
Sep 1, 2011
830
0
0
While I am in favor of kicking corporate this seems a rather weak case.
The case with BioWare lying about the ending of ME3 seemed like a stronger case but it was rejected for some reason.
I just would like to see any company punished for a PR lie just as an example. We simply had enough of those just tell the truth about your damn games and stop making shit up!
 

QuadFish

God Damn Sorcerer
Dec 25, 2010
302
0
0
KingsGambit said:
How tragic that the new consoles have to resort to tricks and subjective effects, particularly in light of audacious claims about the experience. Is the hardware incapable? Is it too new? Are the developers unable to optimise properly? Tricks were the domain of the last, long in the tooth generation where devs had to use any and every trick they could to get something new out of 2005 hardware.
I can't take it seriously anymore when companies make bold claims about the powerful new console generation, even though we're obviously still making compromises when it comes to visual quality. We're getting an increased polygon budget and then immediately pushing it so hard that a bunch of games have to sacrifice resolution and framerate to make up for it.

Seriously, I'm not sharing the same enthusiasm as the Sony and Microsoft devs until they can actually promise enough power for devs to not have to feel pressured to continue the problem. It feels like a marketing trick, like people are more likely to pick up game with the novelty factor of better visuals, even if losing crucial gameplay specs makes it less enjoyable in the long run.
 

Big_Boss_Mantis

New member
May 28, 2012
160
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
Big_Boss_Mantis said:
What I heard is "many crybabies ended up crying because they wanted their pacifiers corn-flower-blue and they got it light-cerulean".
Have you floated this past PC users? Because they're already complaining about games not having 4K support when not even advertised as 4K.
See, even though I don't particularily care for performance shenanigans (resolution, fps, level of detail, etc), and anything that looks right and runs better than Drak Souls 1's Blighttown is fine for me, I DO accept that it might be a big deal for some people.

So, I do understand the PC crowd demanding the latest greatest thing tech has to offer. It is just catering to the PC audience. It is their target demographic.

On the other hand, console gaming is not about better resolution or fps.
It is about exclusives, optimization and, mostly, about laying down on a couch with a wireless controller and playing on a big ass TV without having to think much about the setup.

And, my main point, is that it really means nothing. Sony said 1080p. They made it 1080p using the tricks they had up their sleeves (as console games do, time and time again).
The gamer didn't liked what they did to get to 1080p. But that was never part of the deal... If he was so sensitive about the performance, he should be playing on a PC, that is the platform that best serves his needs.
 

Steve the Pocket

New member
Mar 30, 2009
1,649
0
0
Karloff said:
However multiplayer uses what Sony describes as "temporal projection," utilizing multiple lower-resolution frames effectively stitched together to create the 1080p effect, achieving "subjectively similar" results. Many gamers, Ladore included, found the result unacceptably blurry.
I'm curious what this technique actually does. It sounds like a weird form of interlacing.

Kargathia said:
Are they liable to lose all profit from the latest iteration of Killzone? Probably not. Should the US equivalent of the Advertising Standards Commission have called bullshit years ago? Yes, they should have.
Yeah see there's your problem. I'm pretty sure we don't have one of those. 'Cause yanno, corporations are the real government in this country.

The Grim Ace said:
The more interesting part of this case is how the judge will weigh the PSN EULA in all of this, since it removes the option for the end user to file a class action lawsuit against Sony. That could probably destroy this case as soon as it enters court.
Or the EULA, depending on whether or not the judge decides it matters that some other judge halfway across the country decided it was valid a couple of years ago.
 

CaitSeith

Formely Gone Gonzo
Legacy
Apr 14, 2020
5,164
154
68
A lawsuit? Hmm... I don't know. When Sony advertised the 1080p he was clearly aware about how the gamers would interpret it. But several PS3 games already had a 1080p label on their boxes, and no one said "Hey! It's not 1080p! It's a fraud!" (or at least, not as loud as in this generation). I doubt someone can make these details understandable enough for a judge or a jury (specially with Sony's lawyers doing the opposite).
 

JSoup

New member
Jun 14, 2012
187
0
0
major_chaos said:
Has been for as long as I can remember, and it was TV, not videogames that set the standard.
Actually it was consumer product producers after the FDA started requiring everything in a given product to be put on a label in the 1920s (estimated, might have been earlier or later).
 

MrHide-Patten

New member
Jun 10, 2009
1,309
0
0
That shit is not worth 5 fucking million dollars. I don't care about sticking it to the man, that amount is just obscene and undermines the whole argument as a shallow cash crab.
 

Isra

New member
May 7, 2013
68
0
0
I think we should, as customers, hold developers accountable for making false promises or failing to deliver on the fundamental expectations we have as gamers. It's become increasingly common for big name development studios to half ass titles with the expectations that their masses of loyal fans will just buy it anyway. Hell, they'll probably pre-purchase before there's even a chance for a bad review to pop up.

This lawsuit though... this kind of crap just reminds me that we have too many lawyers in the world. Generally speaking, I don't want honest developers to be discouraged from trying anything new just because some entitled shit might sue them for some obscure technical reason. Developers and publishers are not our de facto enemies, we just need to communicate to them what we want and what we don't. Speak with your wallet, not with your lawyer. Just my two cents.

And don't fucking pre-purchase, even if they offer you the special pre-purchase only Pony Sword of Lazorbeams. You know it's going to be stupid anyway. I don't even pre-purchase my favorite franchises even when I'm 110% certain they'll be good. Get the facts from a decent reviewer - there are still some of those around - and watch some amateur gameplay videos.
 

j4c0b1

New member
Jun 9, 2014
17
0
0
Big_Boss_Mantis said:
And, my main point, is that it really means nothing. Sony said 1080p. They made it 1080p using the tricks they had up their sleeves (as console games do, time and time again).
The gamer didn't liked what they did to get to 1080p. But that was never part of the deal... If he was so sensitive about the performance, he should be playing on a PC, that is the platform that best serves his needs.
This is probably what the case would come down to, (if it ever does go to court) whether up scaled 1080p can be advertised as 1080p.
 

BeerTent

Resident Furry Pimp
May 8, 2011
1,167
0
0
MrHide-Patten said:
That shit is not worth 5 fucking million dollars. I don't care about sticking it to the man, that amount is just obscene and undermines the whole argument as a shallow cash crab.
As others have stated, it's a class action lawsuit. The 5 million is not going to one person.

Second, for an attack against a multi-billion dollar corporation, what do you propose is a reasonable, yet damaging sum of money that the corporation should face? 5 million is still chump change to Sony. If it were me in the seat, I'd be after a reasonable sum of money for everyone in the class action.

That would equate to significantly more than 5 grand.
 

FalloutJack

Bah weep grah nah neep ninny bom
Nov 20, 2008
15,489
0
0
major_chaos said:
I'm not sure what is more sad, this pointless moronic scam of a suit, or the fact that I bet some people here are on the guy's side just because "gotta stick it to the man, man!!!".
I'm confused by your reasoning. If thing not delivering promise but paid for as though thing does, then thing is faulty product. It doesn't get any simpler than that. Either you DID what you were suppose to do or you didn't. And if you didn't, but sell it like you did, then you're a thief and a liar, period. No argument can change it, no bells and whistles apply. If you fail to reach your end of the bargain, you must pay.
 

Karloff

New member
Oct 19, 2009
6,474
0
0
FalloutJack said:
major_chaos said:
I'm not sure what is more sad, this pointless moronic scam of a suit, or the fact that I bet some people here are on the guy's side just because "gotta stick it to the man, man!!!".
I'm confused by your reasoning. If thing not delivering promise but paid for as though thing does, then thing is faulty product. It doesn't get any simpler than that. Either you DID what you were suppose to do or you didn't. And if you didn't, but sell it like you did, then you're a thief and a liar, period. No argument can change it, no bells and whistles apply. If you fail to reach your end of the bargain, you must pay.
The thing is that Sony DID fulfill their end of the bargain, it is just that the person doesn't like how they got they 1080P.
 

FalloutJack

Bah weep grah nah neep ninny bom
Nov 20, 2008
15,489
0
0
kiri2tsubasa said:
FalloutJack said:
major_chaos said:
I'm not sure what is more sad, this pointless moronic scam of a suit, or the fact that I bet some people here are on the guy's side just because "gotta stick it to the man, man!!!".
I'm confused by your reasoning. If thing not delivering promise but paid for as though thing does, then thing is faulty product. It doesn't get any simpler than that. Either you DID what you were suppose to do or you didn't. And if you didn't, but sell it like you did, then you're a thief and a liar, period. No argument can change it, no bells and whistles apply. If you fail to reach your end of the bargain, you must pay.
The thing is that Sony DID fulfill their end of the bargain, it is just that the person doesn't like how they got they 1080P.
This sounds like it's going to be alot of squinting and trying to find the marked difference between one and the other, that is unless there's a real indicator quality difference. Is there? I don't play Killzone.
 

Oskuro

New member
Nov 18, 2009
235
0
0
Big_Boss_Mantis said:
But, gee, there is really ANY importance that the multiplayer is not on native 1080p if the system is, indeed, emulating it?!
A big part of modern games industry is built on the notion that better graphical fidelity is the measure of quality. Most "AAA" (I so hate that term) publishers have used and continue using graphical quality as a marketing highlight of their games (lets remember the Watchdogs "downgrade" fiasco).

This episode is just the logical conclusion. You teach your audience to value certain aspect of your product above all others, then it follows that they will react with anger when you fail to meet those expectations.

My guess on the matter is that graphical improvements were an easy thing in recent years, as graphics technology kept improving dramatically. Nowadays the technology is seeing diminishing returns in that front, and publishers are, as usual, slow to adapt to a new situation. They keep promoting graphical fidelity, but cannot deliver.

So I support these kinds of actions. If only so big publishers get to taste some repercussions for their tactics. It is easy to dismiss such actions as "stick it to the man" anger, but given the amount of power any big corporation has, "sticking it to the man", or, in other words, giving them a slap on the wrist from time to time to teach them they are not all-powerful, is a very worthy goal.


Now I'd love to see similar action popping up to demand Valve implements a return policy on Steam, particularly after all the deceitful titles that have been popping up (check Jim Sterling's youtube channel [http://www.youtube.com/user/JimSterling] for examples)
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
Somone finally taking them to court for false advertisement? this is going to be nice.


major_chaos said:
I'm not sure what is more sad, this pointless moronic scam of a suit, or the fact that I bet some people here are on the guy's side just because "gotta stick it to the man, man!!!".
What is truly sad is that companies can blatantly lie using false advertisement, including the game box itself and there will be people defending said companies.

XenoScifi said:
To me the right thing would be for Sony to just publicly announce they had some wording issues with the 1080p claim, reiterate the way their games are being rendered to give consumers the feel of 1080p and offer a refund for those who want it.
so they had working issue with their claims, wording issue with their advertisement, workding issue with theri game printig, pretty much theri whole company was a wording issue.

yeah, right.

And no, what they do now does not give the feel of 1080p unless you woudl also claim that 1080p video on youtube also gives you the feel of 1080p beside it being compressed so badly that a uncompressed 480p would be better quality.

EyeReaper said:
So wait, this guy wants to sue for 5 mil. and upwards over a blurry screen on a video game?

Now, I know false advertising is a bad thing and all, and I know legal fees can get pretty hefty in cases like this, but isn't that a bit much? Basically what I'm asking is, if this guy wins, does he get all this money, or will it be distributed to everyone who bought the game? Cuz, if he gets the cash... doesn't that mean he'll be profiting from all the saps who fell victim to the advertisements?
No, he is suing for false advertisement, not blurry screen.

This is a class action lawsuit, so the money will be distributed to all people that bought a copy provided they come forward to take the money. consdering how many copes the game sold its likely that he and many others will only get a few dollars each, but the point is to punish a company for false advertisement, preferably with a prohibitive fee.

major_chaos said:
This isn't like Sony got caught in some massive scandalous deception,
actually thats exactly what it is.

If you bought a game solely because OMG1080p and feel the need to sue for 5mil because it was only kinda sorta 1080p my sympathy for you is totally nonexistent. (that was a general statement, not aimed at you personally)
you care more about a thing i care less therefore you are a horrible person.

Big_Boss_Mantis said:
"Many gamers, Ladore included, found the result unacceptably blurry." What I heard is "many crybabies ended up crying because they wanted their pacifiers corn-flower-blue and they got it light-cerulean".

If I was Sony's lawyer (waiting for your call, Kaz) I would advise them to hurry up and release a patch that made the multiplayer NATIVE 1080 and made the game stutter like a husband meeting his wife in the exit of the whorehouse.
And I would make it optional, so that the players could still play the "blurry" version if they wanted to.
And I would call the optional locked 1080p resolution the "Ladore crybaby mode". (well, not that last one because it would cause an PR nightmare)
maybe you should get your ears checked if thats what your hearing. could be a seriuos problem.

False advertisement is bad. does not matter what is falsely advertised, resolution or deadly poison. its still false advertisement.
And if sony did that oh god the lawsuits for defamation and intentional destruction of property. i almost want it to happen.

Zachary Amaranth said:
Well, it's a free market. If the consumer didn't like being lied to, they could just not buy. Oh, sure, some people might say that they had no way to effectively determine such status, but that's just lazy.
are you seriuosly suggesting that buyers should somehow magically determine whenever anyone is lieing and how much?

kiri2tsubasa said:
The thing is that Sony DID fulfill their end of the bargain, it is just that the person doesn't like how they got they 1080P.
No, they did not. they did not produce 1080p

Oskuro said:
My guess on the matter is that graphical improvements were an easy thing in recent years, as graphics technology kept improving dramatically. Nowadays the technology is seeing diminishing returns in that front, and publishers are, as usual, slow to adapt to a new situation. They keep promoting graphical fidelity, but cannot deliver.

Now I'd love to see similar action popping up to demand Valve implements a return policy on Steam, particularly after all the deceitful titles that have been popping up (check Jim Sterling's youtube channel [http://www.youtube.com/user/JimSterling] for examples)
graphical improvements did not stop in recent years at all. the technology is fully there, its just that many developers simply fail to use it and that consoles are run on, previuos 9, now 5 years old hardware. you cant simultaneuosly use outdated hardware and claim that hardware isnt going forward. its your thats not going forward.

Actually there already was a suit for Valve policy. European Court of Justice has decided that at least in EU Valve must provide a way to resell steam games. so far they have not complied, but technically what Valve does now is illegal in EU.
 

Karloff

New member
Oct 19, 2009
6,474
0
0
Denamic said:
'1080p' only refers to the output format. Doesn't matter if it's 320x240 upscaled to 1080p, it's still 1080p. It does not refer to the actual internal resolution of the game, no matter how much people like to use it as such.
That is not how it works.

Upscaling is not native resolution. They advertised native resolution. When you say that the game runs at 1080p at 60 fps they mean native resolution. A PC gamer knows the difference, because upscaling turns everything blurry regardless of how small the upscale is. Its the first thing a PC gamer learns.

1080p is 1920x1080. This is a standard fact. It is a standard of the entire industry.

When you say "it outputs in 1080" you mean 1920x1080. Not 10x1080. not 25x1080. 1920 by 1080.

There is a reason that next gen consoles make it very clear that these consoles can't do 4K. because upscaling is not the same as native support.

In fact, the more upscaling you use, the worse the image looks. Thats why 720p looks like jaggy shit on a 1080p monitor and 480p is unplayable. Native resolution output that is lower than your resolution punishes you.

A game outputs at a set resolution. The game upscales and downscales depending on TV. However, the game still runs at a SET RESOLUTION.

And before you argue about tip and tricks: Its upscaling. That is what they just described. They are just trying to not outright say it because admitting its upscaling is false advertising.
 

Karloff

New member
Oct 19, 2009
6,474
0
0
kiri2tsubasa said:
FalloutJack said:
major_chaos said:
I'm not sure what is more sad, this pointless moronic scam of a suit, or the fact that I bet some people here are on the guy's side just because "gotta stick it to the man, man!!!".
I'm confused by your reasoning. If thing not delivering promise but paid for as though thing does, then thing is faulty product. It doesn't get any simpler than that. Either you DID what you were suppose to do or you didn't. And if you didn't, but sell it like you did, then you're a thief and a liar, period. No argument can change it, no bells and whistles apply. If you fail to reach your end of the bargain, you must pay.
The thing is that Sony DID fulfill their end of the bargain, it is just that the person doesn't like how they got they 1080P.
No they did not. 1080p is a set standard used by TVs and monitors. That means 1920x1080. A resolution is two numbers, not just the 1080 part. It is set standard set by a whole industry and the video game industry follows those same standards. They did not output at that resolution.

Anything else is NOT 1080p. Anything else means that a 1080p TV or monitor isn't supported. Just like saying a Ferrari and a picture of a Ferrari is the same thing. Its not.
 

major_chaos

Ruining videogames
Feb 3, 2011
1,314
0
0
Strazdas said:
What is truly sad is that companies can blatantly lie using false advertisement, including the game box itself and there will be people defending said companies.
Mmmhhmmm K'. I'll continue to enjoy videogames too much to bother trying to burn down the company when Eurogamer tells me I was lied to. Also I'm not exactly defending Sony, I just think a suit is the mother of all over reactions at this point. They told a little white lie and that's bad, but its no where near 5 mil+legal fees bad.
 

Saika Renegade

New member
Nov 18, 2009
298
0
0
major_chaos said:
Mmmhhmmm K'. I'll continue to enjoy videogames too much to bother trying to burn down the company when Eurogamer tells me I was lied to. Also I'm not exactly defending Sony, I just think a suit is the mother of all over reactions at this point. They told a little white lie and that's bad, but its no where near 5 mil+legal fees bad.
That's kind of the point, though; we presume here that Sony has lied in one set of claims made to the public where they can be legally held responsible--this means, if they are guilty of lying in at least one instance, that we can take cause to suspect other documents they make available to the public. The idea isn't to cripple the company when you discover a claim they've made isn't all it's cracked up to be--the issue is to remind the company that willfully lying to try and deceive buyers into purchasing based on false information is still wrong and unacceptable. This is as true with hardware, vehicles, and household goods as it is with games.

In basic, as long as Sony marketing can be shown to have willfully told a demonstrable lie about something that they already had (here the crucial difference is the difference between the concepts of 'our game is 1080p,' an absolute statement, and 'our game looks like 1080p,' a comparison) and people bought the lie, then conclusively parted with their money based on it, they can be accused of the legal basis of false pretenses. That sort of suit can actually stand a chance of seeing trial. If they knowingly made false claims via television or other mediums that cross state lines, then it can technically be charged as wire fraud in the United States, which is a federal offense as well.

The damages and fees you see as excessive is barely a drop in the bucket for Sony, as well as for the group people who receive the payout after lawyer's fees (I sincerely doubt that, in the event of a successful suit, the payout to any one person will be any more than about 20% the price of one copy), but it's still something. It becomes a physical, bottom-line reminder that such blatantly untruthful action is unacceptable.

If a suit was raised merely because they are complaining about a game not being good, yes, it is a pointless suit. A game looking bad is not something you spend the court's time or your money on and you would be 100% right to call it frivolous. But when the suit has the grounds to allege Sony might be responsible for some form of fraud, or the willful use of illegal deceptions to acquire the money of consumers? I don't know about you, but it doesn't seem so silly and pointless anymore.
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
major_chaos said:
Mmmhhmmm K'. I'll continue to enjoy videogames too much to bother trying to burn down the company when Eurogamer tells me I was lied to. Also I'm not exactly defending Sony, I just think a suit is the mother of all over reactions at this point. They told a little white lie and that's bad, but its no where near 5 mil+legal fees bad.
No. The amount of bad should be counted by how much they earned from sales of product sold under false advertisement, and i doubt they only had 5 mil revenue for the game.

Its not trying to burtn down company, its trying to fine company for breaking the law in prohibitive fashion - you know the way laws are supposed to work.
 

VeneratedWulfen93

New member
Oct 3, 2011
7,060
0
0
Something must be wrong with my eyes because I've played Killzone through to completion and a ton of the multiplayer and didn't have one complaint about the visuals. It just feels making fuss over nothing. I didn't buy Killzone because there was a number on the box, I bought it to shoot helghast.
 

Ghadente

White Rabbit
Mar 21, 2009
537
0
0
i don't see how sony could be justifiably sued for so much money even if it is true that they sold the game under false pretenses. At best the kid gets his money back for the purchase of the game, and maybe lawyer fees. Seems pretty ridiculous to me, but you never know, you can sue a place for spilling hot coffee on yourself so why not this too
 

Mr_Spanky

New member
Jun 1, 2012
152
0
0
major_chaos said:
Strazdas said:
What is truly sad is that companies can blatantly lie using false advertisement, including the game box itself and there will be people defending said companies.
Mmmhhmmm K'. I'll continue to enjoy videogames too much to bother trying to burn down the company when Eurogamer tells me I was lied to. Also I'm not exactly defending Sony, I just think a suit is the mother of all over reactions at this point. They told a little white lie and that's bad, but its no where near 5 mil+legal fees bad.
So, responding to the thread without responding to anything I've (personally) outlined is ok? Ignoring things you don't want to deal with is ok? Hmmmmmm? Sure. That's fine of course. A lot of people do that. But your argument is somewhat less (read:nothing) in my mind if you cannot do anything but ignore it.

The point I am making is that you seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding advertising and the laws surrounding it (either on purpose or through ignorance).

If you wish to make any kind of headway in this debate then I would ask you to respond with knowledge and wisdom rather than superstition or ignorance. I have no interest in debating with someone when they do not have the facts at hand.

So grab some facts and get on. Please?

If not, I can only assume that you are opposing the facts from a position of ignorance. And, frankly, if ignorance is your game, I don't have time for you.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,760
0
0
Strazdas said:
are you seriuosly suggesting that buyers should somehow magically determine whenever anyone is lieing and how much?
Would it have changed anything if I posted a picture of Stephen Colbert in the image?

Considering my previous stance had been this:

I knooooow, right? Why should a gamer feel entitled to a game that is as it was claimed to be?

This has to be, like, the lamest reason for a lawsuit ever. What a scam.
I would hope that an equally ridiculous, and very specifically phrased statement about gamer laziness would also come off as a spoof.

But as a cheat sheet, the only serious bit was when I pointed out that a 5 million dollar lawsuit, requesting restitution that would at best (assuming Matt Murdoch himself undertook this case out of his good-willed nature) amount to about seven bucks was not "greedy." Mostly because I really wanted to know if, based on the math, the user still thought that was "greedy."
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,760
0
0
major_chaos said:
Mmmhhmmm K'. I'll continue to enjoy videogames too much to bother trying to burn down the company when Eurogamer tells me I was lied to. Also I'm not exactly defending Sony, I just think a suit is the mother of all over reactions at this point. They told a little white lie and that's bad, but its no where near 5 mil+legal fees bad.
If five million dollars is enough to burn down a multinational company responsible for thousands of products--including several games--per year, they're doing something horribly, horribly wrong.

Five bucks per person lied to[footnote]And even that's rather generous[/footnote] is not "the mother of all" overreactions.

It's not even "I don't want to live on this planet anymore" in terms of overreactions.
 

Karloff

New member
Oct 19, 2009
6,474
0
0
Ghadente said:
i don't see how sony could be justifiably sued for so much money even if it is true that they sold the game under false pretenses. At best the kid gets his money back for the purchase of the game, and maybe lawyer fees. Seems pretty ridiculous to me, but you never know, you can sue a place for spilling hot coffee on yourself so why not this too
Actually that was a myth. Mcdonalds coffee was housed at a temperature that was actually capable of burning your skin off on contact. It was far beyond what normal. We are talking 3rd and maybe 4th degree burns here. We aren't talking about redness or some peeling, we are talking about the loss of skin and needing skin grafts.

And a class action lawsuit demands huge payouts or other plaintiffs won't get compensated. This is more than one person suing.
Big_Boss_Mantis said:
Zachary Amaranth said:
Big_Boss_Mantis said:
What I heard is "many crybabies ended up crying because they wanted their pacifiers corn-flower-blue and they got it light-cerulean".
Have you floated this past PC users? Because they're already complaining about games not having 4K support when not even advertised as 4K.
See, even though I don't particularily care for performance shenanigans (resolution, fps, level of detail, etc), and anything that looks right and runs better than Drak Souls 1's Blighttown is fine for me, I DO accept that it might be a big deal for some people.

So, I do understand the PC crowd demanding the latest greatest thing tech has to offer. It is just catering to the PC audience. It is their target demographic.

On the other hand, console gaming is not about better resolution or fps.
It is about exclusives, optimization and, mostly, about laying down on a couch with a wireless controller and playing on a big ass TV without having to think much about the setup.

And, my main point, is that it really means nothing. Sony said 1080p. They made it 1080p using the tricks they had up their sleeves (as console games do, time and time again).
The gamer didn't liked what they did to get to 1080p. But that was never part of the deal... If he was so sensitive about the performance, he should be playing on a PC, that is the platform that best serves his needs.
What Sony did was not a trick. Its just trying to use fancy words as a red herring.

Upscaling is not a trick or an optimization. Its stretching a smaller image to fit a bigger screen. It makes everything jaggy and destroys any detail in the image.

Any PC gamer knows that it isn't even the high res textures that matter, its seeing whats going on and having low input latency that 60 fps provides. Resolution and FPS does matter because it lets you react and see better.

A game outputs at a set, standard resolution. That means 1920 by 1080 and nothing else. Anything else is not conforming to industry standard for TVs.

native output for 1080p beats upscaling in every aspect. It means the TV is fully supported. However, since Killzone is using a non standard resolution that means NO TV IS SUPPORTED and won't show its full potential. It will always be blurry upscaled crap.

The more you upscale to fit a bigger screen, the worse it looks. That's why buying a 4K tv for a console is a horrible idea because the jaggies go up 10 fold.

Open an image, then zoom in. See all those blocks? That is upscaling.

And console gaming was about FPS and resolution. Nintendo went on record way back when that graphics don't matter, its the frame rate that matters because it makes the game objectively play better. Consoles HAVE to be about resolution because its falling behind the standards of modern TVs.

If a console cannot support modern TVs, then its a bad and outdated console.

and by the way, optimization is now a myth thanks to the standardization of tech and the investment of Nvidia and AMD in hardware but that is another topic.
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
Ghadente said:
i don't see how sony could be justifiably sued for so much money even if it is true that they sold the game under false pretenses. At best the kid gets his money back for the purchase of the game, and maybe lawyer fees. Seems pretty ridiculous to me, but you never know, you can sue a place for spilling hot coffee on yourself so why not this too
this is a class action lawsuit. essnetialy he is representing all people who bought the game and if the court decides in his favor the money will be split among all the people that bought the game.

Also the point of high amount suits are not to "cover damages". it is to provide a preventative fine so the company does not consider it economically feasible to lie again.



Zachary Amaranth said:
Strazdas said:
are you seriuosly suggesting that buyers should somehow magically determine whenever anyone is lieing and how much?
Would it have changed anything if I posted a picture of Stephen Colbert in the image?
i have misread you then. the fault is mine.
 

faefrost

New member
Jun 2, 2010
1,280
0
0
I'm having some issues understanding standing to sue here? First up he brought the product sight unseen? Butthe big thing is did he attempt to get a refund for said product? Was he refused a refund by Sony? Where is the damage here, such that it would necessitate court intervention? Did the lousiness of the game spontaneously trigger the airbags in his Chevy Cobalt causing a 12 care pile up? This is pretty much the definition of frivolous lawsuit. Consumers have an inherent recourse in this situation. Demand a refund. And guess what a couple of hundred thousand people demanding a full refund of Sony would do far more damage to them and send a much clearer message than forcing them to give everyone 35 cents credit on their next purchase, which is what they will get out of a lawsuit.

Honestly whatever lawyer agreed to represent this kid and bring this suit needs to be disbarred.
 

weirdee

Swamp Weather Balloon Gas
Apr 11, 2011
2,634
0
0
EyeReaper said:
So wait, this guy wants to sue for 5 mil. and upwards over a blurry screen on a video game?

Now, I know false advertising is a bad thing and all, and I know legal fees can get pretty hefty in cases like this, but isn't that a bit much? Basically what I'm asking is, if this guy wins, does he get all this money, or will it be distributed to everyone who bought the game? Cuz, if he gets the cash... doesn't that mean he'll be profiting from all the saps who fell victim to the advertisements?

Of course, most of my law knowledge comes from buddy cop movies, so If I'm talking out of my ass, just ignore my comment.
they generally start on the high end of things in order to start off negotiations for working that number down. if they just start from a reasonable number, they would be pressured to go lower than what they were actually expecting. there is rarely a suit which ends with the number that they started with, unless we're talking about those antipiracy suits where people got slapped with maximum inflated fines from laws created by lobbyists and passed by people with corporate hands up their asses.
 

Jessta

New member
Feb 8, 2011
382
0
0
For all those people hoping this guy wins because stick it to the man screw you, you're trying to say it's prefable that one person becomes a millionaire set for life without a lick of work because he experienced a slightly lower resolution game than expected at the cost of hundreds of hard working peoples jobs.

a full refund + shipping is what this man deserves if he doesn't like the product he received not a full rebate of all the money of everyone who purchased the game ever. If he was truly fighting to "restore to Class members any money acquired by means of false advertising (restitution)" then he would be fighting to make it so that they were unable to deny refunds for faulty products or misadvertised products not for all of the money made by the games production into his own pocket.