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.tdylan said: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?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!!!".
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.
You may have slightly missed the point here. Advertising indeed is meant to present its product in as positive a light as possible.major_chaos said: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.Kargathia said:skirting the edges of blatantly false advertising for quite a while now.
I knooooow, right? Why should a gamer feel entitled to a game that is as it was claimed to be?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!!!".
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.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."
5 mill for restitution to all members of the class-action suit and legal fees.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.
Have you floated this past PC users? Because they're already complaining about games not having 4K support when not even advertised as 4K.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".
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.major_chaos said:snip
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:Hixy said:What brand of protein was it? How did you find out that it was'nt what it said on the tub?
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.major_chaos said: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.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.
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 breachedIf 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)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.
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".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.Kargathia said:skirting the edges of blatantly false advertising for quite a while now.
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.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.
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.Zachary Amaranth said:Have you floated this past PC users? Because they're already complaining about games not having 4K support when not even advertised as 4K.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".
I'm curious what this technique actually does. It sounds like a weird form of interlacing.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.
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.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.
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.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.