Sounds like special pleading to me. Or at least, "it's different because ponies."Big_Boss_Mantis said:-snip-
Sounds like special pleading to me. Or at least, "it's different because ponies."Big_Boss_Mantis said:-snip-
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).major_chaos said:Has been for as long as I can remember, and it was TV, not videogames that set the standard.
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.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.
As others have stated, it's a class action lawsuit. The 5 million is not going to one person.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.
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.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!!!".
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.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.FalloutJack said: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.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!!!".
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).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?!
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.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!!!".
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.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.
No, he is suing for false advertisement, not blurry screen.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?
actually thats exactly what it is.major_chaos said:This isn't like Sony got caught in some massive scandalous deception,
you care more about a thing i care less therefore you are a horrible person.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)
maybe you should get your ears checked if thats what your hearing. could be a seriuos problem.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)
are you seriuosly suggesting that buyers should somehow magically determine whenever anyone is lieing and how much?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.
No, they did not. they did not produce 1080pkiri2tsubasa 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.
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.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)
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.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.
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.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.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.
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.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.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.
Would it have changed anything if I posted a picture of Stephen Colbert in the image?Strazdas said:are you seriuosly suggesting that buyers should somehow magically determine whenever anyone is lieing and how much?
I would hope that an equally ridiculous, and very specifically phrased statement about gamer laziness would also come off as a spoof.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.