Update: Class Action Claims Colonial Marines Falsely Advertised

[Karloff]

Update: Class Action Claims Colonial Marines Falsely Advertised

"We think the video game industry is no different than any other that deals with consumers," says the plaintiff's representative, Edelson LLC.

Sega and Gearbox have been targeted in a class action suit, taken up by legal firm Edelson LLC on behalf of Damion Perrine, alleging that Aliens: Colonial Marines was falsely advertised by showing demos which bore very little relation to the final product. The suit argues that, because of the press embargo that only lifted on the game's February 12th launch, those who bought early or pre-ordered would have had no idea that significant discrepancies between the demo and final game existed.

"Each of the 'actual gameplay' demonstrations purported to show consumers exactly what they would be buying: a cutting edge video game with very specific features and qualities," the claim states; but, Tweet [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/122365-The-Story-Behind-Alien-Colonial-Marines-Failure] by Randy Pitchford, Gearbox head, in which Pitchford seems to acknowledge that differences existed and were significant. "That is understood and fair" Tweeted Pitchford, in response to a statement by a fan, who argued that the people just wanted an explanation as to why the game was so different from the demo. "We are looking at that," Pitchford went on to say. "Lots of info to parse, lots of stake holders to respect."

describes that case [https://twitter.com/edelsonllc/status/329422224815697920] as "presently in settlement posture," but goes on to say that it continues to monitor the industry, with a view to keeping "the booming video game business honest."

Source: Polygon [http://www.polygon.com/2013/4/30/4287382/aliens-colonial-marines-lawsuit-class-action-sega-gearbox]

Update: Sega and Gearbox have both responded to the suit.

Sega: "Sega cannot comment on specifics of ongoing litigation, but we are confident that the lawsuit is without merit and we will defend it vigorously."

Gearbox: "Attempting to wring a class action lawsuit out of a demonstration is beyond meritless. We continue to support the game, and will defend the rights of entertainers to share their works-in-progress without fear of frivolous litigation."

Source: Kotaku [http://kotaku.com/sega-false-advertising-lawsuit-is-without-merit-487931613]

Permalink

 

[The White Hunter]

Seems legit. It was horribly falseley advertised to be fair, that trailer looked awesome and then the game is kinda.. not...

Dead horse, lets flog it some more in hopes of it being a money pinata!

 

[Atary77]

To those who claim that BioShock Infinite and Kill zone 2 are guilty of the same crime you have to remember that Sony and 2K eventually showed us what those games really looked like before those games released.

Gearbox and Sega on the other hand continued to only show doctored footage.

 

[Colt47]

To those who claim that BioShock Infinite and Kill zone 2 are guilty of the same crime you have to remember that Sony and 2K eventually showed us what those games really looked like before those games released.

Gearbox and Segacon the other hand continued to only show doctored footage.

Definitely. Aliens Colonial Marines is textbook false advertising and there isn't any way around it unless someone wants to try driving the argument through a three ring circus of circular logic, and if some defense lawyer wants to really do that I'd question their moral integrity.

 

[Legion]

I have always felt the same thing. Gaming seems to be one of the only industries where it is commonly accepted to claim your product includes features, and then not include them without saying a word. It doesn't help that if you ever complain about it then people will make accusations of entitlement or pettiness.

Although personally I'd just prefer stronger legislation being put in place in regards to advertising and promoting, rather than people making lawsuits. The problem is that the people in charge of making such rules are hopelessly out of date when it comes to such things.

 

[Erttheking]

I have a bad feeling that we're gonna see some entitlement claims soon. I really hope we can avoid that.

 

[ThriKreen]

While I won't get into the A:CM press vs actual release issue, this DOES create the potential for a very, very dangerous precedence, as features change all the time in development and often what is shown in demos end up being changed around in the final.

Look at the videos of Bioshock Infinite from last year to the released game now. The original military theme of TeamFortress 2 to it's current incarnation.

What's the threshold for allowable change to not? What's preventing someone from getting hurt over a pet feature being removed from suing the studio to force them to (re)implement it, even though said studio decided it wasn't really that good a feature? Would a "Not final gameplay" subtitle in videos be enough to cover their ass?

It's the same issue that occurs when players build up a game's premise too unrealistic expectations in their mind, and the result game on release is not quite the same, so they go and review bomb it. People need to temper their expectations.

 

[itsthesheppy]

While I won't get into the A:CM press vs actual release issue, this DOES create the potential for a very, very dangerous precedence, as features change all the time in development and often what is shown in demos end up being changed around in the final.

Look at the videos of Bioshock Infinite from last year to the released game now. The original military theme of TeamFortress 2 to it's current incarnation.

What's the threshold for allowable change to not? What's preventing someone from getting hurt over a pet feature being removed from suing the studio to force them to (re)implement it, even though said studio decided it wasn't really that good a feature? Would a "Not final gameplay" subtitle in videos be enough to cover their ass?

It's the same issue that occurs when players build up a game's premise too unrealistic expectations in their mind, and the result game on release is not quite the same, so they go and review bomb it. People need to temper their expectations.

Bioshock Infinite's marketing surrounding the launch did reflect features from the game that we got in the final product. A lot did change in a year, but those changes were represented in the marketing. ACM did not do this, and launched a game without clarifying its marketing to match the changes made.

 

[AntiChri5]

While I won't get into the A:CM press vs actual release issue, this DOES create the potential for a very, very dangerous precedence, as features change all the time in development and often what is shown in demos end up being changed around in the final.

Look at the videos of Bioshock Infinite from last year to the released game now. The original military theme of TeamFortress 2 to it's current incarnation.

What's the threshold for allowable change to not? What's preventing someone from getting hurt over a pet feature being removed from suing the studio to force them to (re)implement it, even though said studio decided it wasn't really that good a feature? Would a "Not final gameplay" subtitle in videos be enough to cover their ass?

It's the same issue that occurs when players build up a game's premise too unrealistic expectations in their mind, and the result game on release is not quite the same, so they go and review bomb it. People need to temper their expectations.

There is no problem with changes being made during development. A trailer is hardly a binding legal document, after all. Features get added and removed, rewrites occur, themes shift. It happens, and devs shouldn't be punished for it. So long as they are open and upfront about it. An updated trailer, a q&a, even just a twitter post mentioning that there were some changes and linking to a list.

Anything else is just a bait and switch.

 

[1337mokro]

While I won't get into the A:CM press vs actual release issue, this DOES create the potential for a very, very dangerous precedence, as features change all the time in development and often what is shown in demos end up being changed around in the final.

Look at the videos of Bioshock Infinite from last year to the released game now. The original military theme of TeamFortress 2 to it's current incarnation.

What's the threshold for allowable change to not? What's preventing someone from getting hurt over a pet feature being removed from suing the studio to force them to (re)implement it, even though said studio decided it wasn't really that good a feature? Would a "Not final gameplay" subtitle in videos be enough to cover their ass?

It's the same issue that occurs when players build up a game's premise too unrealistic expectations in their mind, and the result game on release is not quite the same, so they go and review bomb it. People need to temper their expectations.

Well that is very simple. Objective Reviews (I know an oxymoron but hey) were available before date of release. Of the videos released at least one video released to the public before date of release has to accurately represents the game. Communication ahead of release of the features that WILL be present in the end product and possible planned or dropped features are optional.

When I bought Bioshock Infinite there were videos that showed me what it was, reviews that showered it with (undeserved) praise and the box described the shooter it was.

With Colonial Marines, which I thought smelled fishy so I didn't buy it. They released DELIBERATELY edited footage that they could not HOPE to ever put into a game. What they created was essentially a tech demo so unoptimized and taxing it would melt the 360. They touted features up to the day the game was released that were not present in the game.

To look at a text book example see the War Z launch. That is false advertisment.

Sure there are features missing from the gameplay demo of Bioshock Infinite, a demo which I think overshadows and sucker punches the full game with it's awesomeness, but these were never shown as actual game demo's. What Bioshock Infinite released was essentially giant trailers of possible gameplay (which I much rather they had made than this watered down piss of Call of Columbia: Multiverse at War).

 

[fix-the-spade]

While I won't get into the A:CM press vs actual release issue, this DOES create the potential for a very, very dangerous precedence, as features change all the time in development and often what is shown in demos end up being changed around in the final.

Not really, Sega/Gearbox put out review code early then imposed a non-disclosure agreement to make sure nobody could say how awful it was until after release, whilst at the same time releasing bags of marketing material that can be kindly described as heavily edited.

That's shady, very shady. Compared to Killzone 2 it's really shady. KZ2 had that one pre-rendered trailer in the PS3 promo video, but by the time it came out there was masses of actual gameplay footage and in-engine trailers kicking around. There were even promo vs actual comparisons before release day. Sony also didn't put a gag on any of the press pointing out what was different.

 

[Talaris]

As a gamer and also a big Aliens fan, I do feel some accountability needs to be brought to light as to exactly what happened during this game's production. Everything we know so far is still just conjecture, and blame as to who did what and who made the decisions is being thrown left and right.

A lot of games strip features before release; a big example I can think of is the Hydra creature from Half Life 2, which had entire levels built around it that were eventually scrapped. But you can't show a video that states "Actual Gameplay" and then go back on that without revealing it publicly first.

This is why even for high profile games like Bioshock Infinite I wait until for at least one or two reviews before buying.

 

[DoPo]

While I won't get into the A:CM press vs actual release issue, this DOES create the potential for a very, very dangerous precedence, as features change all the time in development and often what is shown in demos end up being changed around in the final.

I think others slightly misunderstood your point but I get what you mean. The issue is not that Bioshock Infinte was changed, but rather in the future this could be seen as false advertising, based on the precedent of AC:M. Which, while not exactly true, may be true enough to hold up in court. There are a lot of time when consumers are acting...not smart. Sometimes legitimately, other times "just because". It doesn't take much for somebody to go "Hurr, I saw THIS video from a years and a half ago and preordered, only to find that now the gun is a different shade of purple. I WANT MY MONEY BACK, YOU CHEATERS!" - OK that's a slight exaggeration but it's not like it cannot happen. Heck, something sort of similar did happen - there was a thread where somebody was upset after getting the game and it not holding up to a video from more than a year before.

It is a dangerous situation. I suppose there are roughly two paths to try and avoid it - 1. don't show anything until the game is almost done 2. only allow preorders if it's almost done and there is material showing the current state of the game and heavily lace every material released before with "NOT THE FINAL PRODUCT!".

 

[Assassin Xaero]

So then can I sue BioWare for the Dragon Age: Origins trailer than made the bland and boring piece of trash look awesome and fun?

 

[Soviet Heavy]

I guess I should start making class action lawsuits against movie trailers for including scenes that aren't in the actual film.

 

[Marik2]

Doesn't this kinda go with Mass Effect 3? I remember people wanting to sue because it was marketed as a game where all your choices had impact to the story.

 

[VanQ]

Well, I actually am glad to see this happen. I hope it sets a precedent. That game companies have to start showing real gameplay footage and screenshots rather than prettied up versions.

Hopefully someone gives Irrational one for as well, considering they did the same damn thing with a bullshit trailer for Infinite.

 

[Jamous]

Well it does make sense here. There was a lot of -gameplay- in the trailers that was nothing like what showed up in the final product. That's to be expected, but to the extent that it happened? No. Not ok.

 

[Vivi22]

While I won't get into the A:CM press vs actual release issue, this DOES create the potential for a very, very dangerous precedence, as features change all the time in development and often what is shown in demos end up being changed around in the final.

Look at the videos of Bioshock Infinite from last year to the released game now. The original military theme of TeamFortress 2 to it's current incarnation.

What's the threshold for allowable change to not? What's preventing someone from getting hurt over a pet feature being removed from suing the studio to force them to (re)implement it, even though said studio decided it wasn't really that good a feature? Would a "Not final gameplay" subtitle in videos be enough to cover their ass?

It's the same issue that occurs when players build up a game's premise too unrealistic expectations in their mind, and the result game on release is not quite the same, so they go and review bomb it. People need to temper their expectations.

As other people have pointed out, you're looking for a slippery slope where none exists. This wasn't a case of a company changing a game multiple times from when it began development to release and releasing updated trailers and previews. This was a case of a company flat out lying to the public right up until it was released and gagging the media so they couldn't say anything until after the game was out. They deliberately misled people and rather than coming clean that the final game wasn't going to live up to the expectation they did everything they could to keep up the charade in the name of not losing pre-orders and week one sales. They quite literally defrauded people.

No one could say that between the original screenshots of TF2 and its release that people weren't well aware of the change in style. No one can claim that between the trailers of Bioshock Infinite early on and now there weren't plenty of actual trailers and hands on previews and reviews around and at release. There is no worrying precedent being set here. There is only consumers exercising their rights to sue a company that legitimately defrauded them. If anything, it would set a far more troubling precedent if consumers did nothing, or if the courts end up dismissing the suit or ruling in favour of the companies in question.

 

[Dexter S. Bateman]

I really like that Pitchford is taking this seriously, I can only imagine EA/Activision trying to dismiss it or whatever, but I am firmly on the "worrying precedent" side of this.

I realise much changed from the trailer to the game (nearly all for the worse), but I also thought it was fairly well known that demos and trailers are always rosy-coloured looks at what might be, as they are made while the game is in development. Where does taking advertising with a grain of salt end and false advertising begin?