Gamer Sues Sony Over Killzone Multiplayer 1080p Claims

[Isra]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[FalloutJack]

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]

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]

Somone finally taking them to court for false advertisement? this is going to be nice.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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?

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

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.

 

[major_chaos]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Strazdas]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.