Update: Class Action Claims Colonial Marines Falsely Advertised

[rapidoud]

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.

IMHO the game footage looked crap beforehand.

I created the Colonial marines thread on WP years ago, then saw the first trailer, and abandoned ship as the AI clearly wasn't turned on and when reporters started running through the levels the game was an obvious piece of turd. One spot in particular had a marine gunning down 12 aliens that just beelined down the corridor at the player as they stood there with a smartgun just picking them off so boringly.

Let alone they promised noHUD.

If you were too dumb to see otherwise then that's your bad luck as reporters were showing the crap beforehand even if that first trailer somehow appeared 'good' to anyone. Unfortunately I can't find the video anymore, but I posted about it on GON, and now 'aliens colonial marines gameplay' brings up legions of walkthroughs instead of the truth that was shouted from rooftops before release.

 

[grigjd3]

Lawyer glut. I don't like the idea that if a game isn't terrific, we should litigatee. I mean, I buy games that I lose interest in all the time. Often, they are some of the most popular games out there. That doesn't mean I demand my money back from gamespot becaus they gave MGSIV a ten star rating for what was effectively a bad movie with bits of gameplay tacked on. It just means I don't trust gamespot reviews any more. There is a natural correcting mechanism in place for this kind of thing and the market fulfills that role well. Why do we need lawyers involved? So we can pay lawyers more money?

 

[4RM3D]

This has nothing to do with the game being falsely advertised. This has to do with Damion Perrine (the gamer) being an ass and wanting to see some money, instead of seeking justice. Which is the case with 99% of these kinds of lawsuits.

Also, (blindly) pre-ordering games has its risks. And you know damn well what you are getting yourself into.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

The one for Mass Effect 3 was idiotic(as proved by the court), but this one actually seems fairly legit.

After watching that video Based Jim did, the trailer had NOTHING to do with the finished product.

I just hope this doesn't start happening for every game people don't like.

 

[Something Amyss]

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.

I don't know. These days people get yelled at and called "entitled" for complaining about just about any product. Though I do agree it's worse in gaming.

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.

They claimed the demo was a "vertical slice" of the game and promoted it as such right up to release. Most demos don't do that, unless I'm missing something. Hell, most demos I play advertise they are part of an earlier build and might not reflect the final product.

Pitchford and company seem to have stepped out to willfully deceive people. If this sets a "dangerous precedent," I have to wonder how honest the gaming industry is.

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.

It's not unreasonable to expect the game to work as advertised. It IS unreasonable to expect the game to be better than promised because of your own inflated expectations. Apples and oranges. Actually, apples and orcs.

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.

It was a Better Business Bureau filing. Which was a decent idea, really.

This has to do with Damion Perrine (the gamer) being an ass and wanting to see some money, instead of seeking justice. Which is the case with 99% of these kinds of lawsuits.

Are you psychic? Do you know what evil lurks in the hearts of men?

 

[Slash2x]

SURPRIIIIIIIISE!

That took longer than I thought....

I would like to point out to the naysayers on this suit. The effectively promised a freshly cut two inch Salmon steak and gave you a can of Tuna instead. It was not a case of different features etc it was a case of different ENGINE, and not in the upgrade way either. Even the damn box art on the back does not look like the game.

 

[bravetoaster]

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.

I'm curious--was there some sort of legally-binding contract preventing any members of the press who had pre-release knowledge of the game from talking? (And, if yes, is that typical for these things?)

 

[d_morff]

I'm surprised the UK Advertising Standards ruling hasn't popped up yet:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/123059-Sega-Admits-to-Inaccurate-Aliens-Colonial-Marines-Trailer

Seems that (in the UK at least) Sega has already been found wanting by a relevant governing body. Wether this will come into play in te lawsuit is another matter however.

 

[GAunderrated]

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.


Would a "Not final gameplay" subtitle in videos be enough to cover their ass?

Legally yes informing your customers that what you are seeing is not necessarily the final product would be enough to protect them.

Right now game companies are happy to show amazing footage even if they have 0 intention of including it in the final product but misleading customers that it is and that is a horrible practice that needs to be dealt with for the exact reason every one was yelling about during the whole CM debacle.

I think the debate and holding game companies accountable with transparency in game development is a great thing. If they take an essential ADVERTISED part of the game they need to let us know that they did, why they did, and what the product looks like now.

I hope this sets a precedence because the gaming industry needs more consumer friendly precedences.

 

[Zombie_Moogle]

Lawyer glut. I don't like the idea that if a game isn't terrific, we should litigatee. I mean, I buy games that I lose interest in all the time. Often, they are some of the most popular games out there. That doesn't mean I demand my money back from gamespot becaus they gave MGSIV a ten star rating for what was effectively a bad movie with bits of gameplay tacked on. It just means I don't trust gamespot reviews any more. There is a natural correcting mechanism in place for this kind of thing and the market fulfills that role well. Why do we need lawyers involved? So we can pay lawyers more money?

Let's say you bought a house. They show it to you, it's a 5 bedroom, 2 bath, but after you buy it & move in, it's suddenly 3 bedroom, 1 bath. Several rooms were an elaborate optical illusion
Would you sue?

The key point that makes this more legitimate a claim than "the game sux" is that they claimed to be showing "in-game footage" of things that were not in the game & continued to do so until they had everyone's money. Things change in development, but what they showed to advertise the product was clearly never a part of the product to begin with. That is by definition false advertising & a crime

 

[senordesol]

I say that the fact that they're being sued in and of itself is a good thing. Of course, demos are meant to portray the game in the best light possible, and obviously it is within a company's interest to suppress negative feedback until the very last second they can, but based on what I've heard from Jim and Angry Joe and a slew of others; the public was promised one thing and delivered another. Now we can quibble over what 'degrees' of honesty are and are not acceptable, but what this lawsuit should serve to represent is that when you make fucking PROMISES to your consumers, we are going to hold you to account and when you break those promises worse might happen to you than just the loss of future business.

The industry is growing more and more cynical, treating its consumers more and more like ATMs than customers whom they have to woo and wow. It's got to stop. And while the actual grounds of this suit are debatable, I'm glad to see that people who found themselves out of pocket due to shady business practices are going to make some noise about it.

Regardless of how the suit goes, I'll bet that when Gearbox decides they're going to hype another game; they're really going to pay attention to how the final product stacks up against what they advertised.

 

[Elamdri]

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.

Your choices DID impact the story of Mass Effect 3. The problem was that most of them did not impact the story in super significant ways like most people expected (Which was honestly a foolish expectation in the first place). Most choices worked out to be you get a letter or a brief meeting with a character from a previous game.

What people WANTED was for every tiny little choice that they made in the game to have some impact on the very final ending of the game. The problem there being that you have WAY too many variables to account for and if they tried that, they'd have to write 7 billion different endings.

Also, personally, I kinda liked that in a game all about choice, the ending was sorta like "Nope, this is all you get" which to me kinda drove home the point of sometimes despite our best efforts, we don't get what we want.

 

[ThriKreen]

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!".

Thank you for realizing it's not the specific examples, but the general premise that what you show in the demos, must now legally also be in the game - even if later development work deemed the feature to be removed for whatever reason. Would there be a statute of limitations for how far back it could go? Six months? One year?

So where's the lawsuit that the horse scene in Bioshock Infinite isn't there anymore? Oh wait, none, because BI was a decent game. But what if, like someone mentioned, you didn't like DA:O, even if many did? How do you base a lawsuit on how one quantifies subjective "fun" of a game where some liked it and others did not, based on a video trailer?

What if A:CM had the intro they showed in the demos, but the rest of the game was what it was. Ignoring the recursive lawsuit result allowing for the same lawsuit to be applied to the same game, by the potential precedence set now, technically there's no grounds for one as what they showed is still part of the game, even if the rest of it was bad.

And to the others that disregard my concern over this and saying it's a slippery slope - you might have a point if gamers were reasonable and not raging over every little thing. No buyer's remorse or feeling like they own the game and thus should be able to dictate everything that goes on in development. Realizing the difference between the final product and what you expected and not getting what you want.

Oh wait, people being reasonable...

Obviously I don't agree with pure marketing demos either. Even from a dev standpoint it takes a lot of work to branch and make a demo, and often the work involved does NOT get merged back into the main game. A lot of wasted work to be honest, I'd rather stick to playable demos myself.

 

[Callate]

I understand the frustration, but it would be a real shame if something like this made people like Pitchford unwilling to communicate with the fanbase for fear they might be providing ammunition for future lawsuits. I'd like game companies to learn something from their mistakes other than "keep a tighter lid on the PR."

 

[medv4380]

As much as I want to say this is clear false advertising. This is also the fault of the Gaming Press. The entire embargo things needs to stop. You're not behaving as actual journalists if you don't report the stories you have until the publisher is "ready".

Yellow Journalism would be more credible.

 

[Tohuvabohu]

And to the others that disregard my concern over this and saying it's a slippery slope - you might have a point if gamers were reasonable and not raging over every little thing. No buyer's remorse or feeling like they own the game and thus should be able to dictate everything that goes on in development. Realizing the difference between the final product and what you expected and not getting what you want.

Oh wait, people being reasonable...

Your post contains an awful lot of 'What-ifs' and finger pointing at gamers.
Alarmist worst-case-scenario hypotheticals aside. yeah, gamers can be a bunch of insufferable fucktards sometimes sure, I get that.

But is it really too much to ask for the game industry to show us consumers some honesty? The press embargos, the lack of a playable demo... Is it really that hard for them to be on our side for once?

A playable demo would've all but prevented this situation from even happening. Everyone could've seen how awful the game was going to be, and made their own decisions on whether to buy it.
A lot of pre-orders would've been cancelled. But would a bunch of cancelled pre-orders really be a worse outcome than the possibility of your hypotheticals coming true because of this?

 

[DTWolfwood]

The law suit sounds compelling. I is false advertisement. There is even precedent for it in europe. I'm glad someone is willing the spend the money to take them to task for their wrong doing! Gearbox needs a good kick in the balls.

 

[f1r2a3n4k5]

This has nothing to do with the game being falsely advertised. This has to do with Damion Perrine (the gamer) being an ass and wanting to see some money, instead of seeking justice. Which is the case with 99% of these kinds of lawsuits.

Also, (blindly) pre-ordering games has its risks. And you know damn well what you are getting yourself into.

To be fair, most class action lawsuits are more about holding a company accountable for their actions on behalf of the consumer.

Damion Perrine would be the "lead plantiff" who is supposed to represent all of the people who pre-ordered ACM. The "class" of people can have their names listed and get a slice of the settlement, but they waive their right to sue individually (which, in a case like this, makes sense cause most people aren't going to have the money/motivation to sue Gearbox as an individual over this.)

The lion's share of the money will likely go to the law firm to pay for legal fees because class action lawsuits are generally high-cost for law firms.

The rest of the money could go towards anything from a refund or a rebate of a $1. But the idea is that Gearbox has been "punished" for their transgressions against the consumers.

Edit: Additionally, I don't think this sets a bad-precedent. The difference being that when Team Fortress 2 changed art styles, it was over the 10+ year development cycle. They had yet to accept any money in exchange for the product. If they took pre-orders for Team Fortress 2: A team-based military RTS and released current Team Fortress, you could argue false advertising.

 

[Cid Silverwing]

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.

Exactly what I'm thinking.

Why did no one come forward to press BioEAware on their bullshit? This is precisely the same situation, no whats, ifs or buts about it.

 

[grigjd3]

Lawyer glut. I don't like the idea that if a game isn't terrific, we should litigatee. I mean, I buy games that I lose interest in all the time. Often, they are some of the most popular games out there. That doesn't mean I demand my money back from gamespot becaus they gave MGSIV a ten star rating for what was effectively a bad movie with bits of gameplay tacked on. It just means I don't trust gamespot reviews any more. There is a natural correcting mechanism in place for this kind of thing and the market fulfills that role well. Why do we need lawyers involved? So we can pay lawyers more money?

Let's say you bought a house.

Are you seriously comparing a $60 video game (if bought at full price) to something that costs on the order of half a million dollars? There is literally FOUR ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE difference between your example and what we are talking about here. FOUR ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE!!!! Do you comprehend that? That is an absolutely ridiculous, even absurd comparison. You know what else doesn't compare well? I won't be too upset if a light bulb goes out but I'll be fairly upset if the sun ceases to function. You know what else? I'm not bothered too much by a dust devil but I would be very upset to be in the path of a tornado. A rainy day isn't going to leave me too depressed but a monsoon season could leave me wishing to live elsewhere. A magnitude 3 earthquake might make me notice it's existence but a magnitude 7 earthquake is often fatal.

What's more, aside from the scale of the cost is the permanence of the effect on the consumer. If I buy a bad game that was advertised inaccurately, I can simply choose not to play that game. If I buy a house that turns out to be a money-sink, I have to live with that until I can unload it on someone else. This is seriously the most absurd argument I have ever heard. I mean, one is where I live and the other is a way I might (note the word might) entertain myself for a few hours.

Of course your response is going to be based on some mythical "principle" of the thing but if we ran our country based on these "principles" we'd all of us, always, be in court. I for one, don't want to spend my life in a courtroom (one of the most annoying places one can be) so I'd prefer we handle whatever issues we can out of court. I mean, seriously, it's not like the developer exactly is making out like a bandit for this. This game was largely viewed as a commercial failure. The market has already acted in this case.