Update: Class Action Claims Colonial Marines Falsely Advertised

[f1r2a3n4k5]

snip

This is a class action lawsuit, which serves a totally different purpose.

If you bought a house that had three rooms less than advertised. You'd likely want to sue the realtor yourself for compensation over the false advertising.

As this is a $60 game, it's not feasible for 10,000 people (however many it is) to individually sue Gearbox for a small compensation. So the law firm is essentially offering to represent that entire "class." Thus, while there may be some compensation, it is primarily to ensure that this behavior is discouraged.

 

[Pyrian]

False and misleading advertising is illegal. Full stop. If you're going to advertise with claims that are not, or even may not be, representative of the final product, then you need to declare that. And yeah, you could probably get away with the standard bit of legalese at the end of the ad. But without that? You're just breaking the law.

 

[LetalisK]

I'm kind of okay about this, but at the same time I know it's not really going to change anything. Add a simple disclaimer, companies can go back to doing whatever.

I wonder what Chemical Alia thinks about all this. Or if she could even comment.

 

[senordesol]

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.

They aren't supposed to behave as 'actual' journalists. Their entire ability to produce content is predicated on having good relationships with developers (or, if not 'good', at least equitable). Game Dev 'X' doesn't have to give Outlet 'Y' a hands-on with Big Game 'Z'. If Outlet 'Y' breaks agreements with Game Dev 'X', then 'X' sure as hell won't be giving exclusives to 'Y' anytime soon.

Games Journalism is 'entertainment journalism', not investigative journalism. While some, like the Escapist, will have a consumer advocacy bent; they can't exactly afford to be burning bridges. If they agree that they're not going to talk about the content they see -good or bad- until a certain date, they have to hold to that promise.

While Games Journalism helps the Games Industry, the Games Industry doesn't *need* Game Journalism. But in order for Games Journalism to be effective, it does need the Games Industry. GJs are passionate about games, and really really want to talk about them -good or bad- but they also have to make sure they have a job tomorrow.

 

[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.

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.

Pretty sure there was an attempt for a lawsuit but no one took it seriously or something

 

[Something Amyss]

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."

Pitchford looks to have willfully deceived not just us, but their publisher. And while a tweet might be kinda damning, I doubt it'll be the major factor.

The real issue is deceptive advertising, which this game had in spades. This whole ordeal reeks, and not just the false advertising.

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.

Unfortunately, actual journalism has started in on this, and it's been downhill since.

However, while the gaming press is useless, it should never be the burden of the press to assure quality from companies.

 

[barbzilla]

I have a feeling this is going to fall through. Within 2 weeks after launch they had patched the game with the lighting features that were missing, the rest of it can be brushed off with "pre-release changes".

 

[2fish]

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.

But in class action suits the lawyers are the only ones who see the money? Usually the pay out is so small it was not worth the emotional rollercoaster of lawsuits. I mean think about it after lawyer fees which can become huge after years of litigation/or they just take a percent/set amount when you win then you have to divide the leftover money among all of the people who signed on.

I am not sure how you seek justice with this other than suing them. I mean call them and ask them to fix this and come clean?

I am interested to see where this goes.

 

[KungFuJazzHands]

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.

The point of this lawsuit is that the issue is not being handled properly out of court -- sitting by and allowing the developer to get away with misleading marketing is not handling it properly.

Speculative financial effects aside (we don't even know at this point whether A:CM's total sales have managed to cover its development costs), how have Gearbox been otherwise affected by this controversy? They're not being noticeably censured by the mainstream gaming press, because the mainstream gaming press depends on handouts from publishers that rely on companies like Gearbox to design their products. And Gearbox are certainly not being held to task by willing consumers who continue to buy the game despite knowing the history behind it.

Legal liability is the next logical step if we want to see some kind of positive change in the way the video game industry develops and markets its products. It sends a strong message that this type of manipulative behavior will no longer be tolerated.

Bad people exhibiting bad behavior should be held accountable for their actions.

 

[JarinArenos]

Spoiler

The issue here is the "actual gameplay footage" claim that was made time and time again, right up until release, and how it was anything BUT actual gameplay. It is malicious intent to deceive that matters in this case, and they deserve to be taken to the cleaners for it.

 

[Zombie_Moogle]

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?

You are correct; as A:CM sold several million dollars worth of copies, to compare it to something as inexpensive as a house is an unfair comparison

 

[4RM3D]

*snip*

If you put it like that it makes sense.

I am not sure how you seek justice with this other than suing them. I mean call them and ask them to fix this and come clean?

The difference between justice vs revenge is the intend on which you act. If you just want to punish the studio, you seek revenge. If you just see a way to make money, you are an ass. Though as pointed out by some people, the way the lawsuit works, the most money goes to the laywers. Anyhow, I really don't believe this person feels like the industry has abandoned him. He doesn't sue them because it is the right thing to do and it makes the world better. We all know the devs of ACM screwed up. We don't need a lawsuit to prove it or to set the studio straight.

 

[medv4380]

snip.

They aren't supposed to behave as 'actual' journalists. Their entire ability to produce content is predicated on having good relationships with developers (or, if not 'good', at least equitable). Game Dev 'X' doesn't have to give Outlet 'Y' a hands-on with Big Game 'Z'. If Outlet 'Y' breaks agreements with Game Dev 'X', then 'X' sure as hell won't be giving exclusives to 'Y' anytime soon.

Games Journalism is 'entertainment journalism', not investigative journalism. While some, like the Escapist, will have a consumer advocacy bent; they can't exactly afford to be burning bridges. If they agree that they're not going to talk about the content they see -good or bad- until a certain date, they have to hold to that promise.

While Games Journalism helps the Games Industry, the Games Industry doesn't *need* Game Journalism. But in order for Games Journalism to be effective, it does need the Games Industry. GJs are passionate about games, and really really want to talk about them -good or bad- but they also have to make sure they have a job tomorrow.

Entertainment Journalism is in essence tabloid journalism. If they have a story about Mary Kate and Ashley with photos of a cocaine fueled escapade they'll be hitting the front cover. Aliens should have been considered a Front Cover disaster, and Yellow Journalists would have printed it in a second. Movie Critics, anther kind of entertainment journalist, may get embagos, but not with a dead line that makes the reviews not come out until the movie is released. Rather they just keep the critics in the dark to avoid a bad early review which tells most people that the movie sucks and is best avoided anyways.

The game industry needs game journalism as much as game journalism needs the industry. Without the journalists triple A titles would have to do a hell of a lot more marketing to get the job done. As it stands, the journalists reduce the marketing burden for triple A and give good Indie titles a chance to have some marketing, if they get noticed.

If the journalists bothered to unionize they could fix this embargo problem. The real issue is if the embargo is set on or after the games release. If someone breaks the embargo they get black listed, and future work goes to those that followed the embargo. A journalist union could dictate that no embargo could be set that didn't allow at least 1 week for the reviews to hit prior to release. Since most games are released on a Tuesday in the US it's pretty easy to spot a publisher trying to set a bad embargo with a Tuesday. Breaking the rule would have the result of the entire union pulling future reviews for the publisher. Similar to how Total Biscuit refuses to give Sega any reviews after they did a take down notice over Shining Force related content. Though he was more than willing to give Sega a negative review over Aliens.

The problem is that Game Journalist have no spine, and have a weakness for publisher bribes.

 

[major_chaos]

>fail to do research
>Buy shitty game for 60$
>sue
>receive thousands of dollars
>???
>Profit
American legal system, fuck yea.

 

[laserwulf]

Pardon my ignorance, I haven't played A:CM and tend to ignore preview articles in favor of reviews of the final product. Which features in Gearboxes advertisements and/or press releases for A:CM were not present in the final game? Having been a gamer since 1990, I've seen plenty of games release that -technically- had all the features as advertised, but were so bare-bones or poorly implemented that you have to wonder why the devs even bothered. It's called being a smart consumer; if you pre-order a game and/or buy it before any reviews are available, don't be surprised if you sometimes choose unwisely. (I'm guilty of this myself on occasion.) It's a sad state of affairs that the game industry seems to be banking on this, by offering pre-order swag/content, especially retailer-exclusives. It's in their best (short-term) interest to get as many people buying their product as possible before any negative opinions get out. Besides, no one really -wants- to admit that they made a bad decision by buying a bad game based on excitement overruling reason, so "it MUST be the fault of anyone other than me."

The developers promised!
The publishers lied!
The reviewers are all industry shills!

Every time I hear someone say "but they PROMISED" regarding a feature, I can't help but hear a whinny little kid's voice. If a person involved with the game (vs. the company in official releases) overhyping their project is grounds for legal action, then Peter Molyneux would be serving consecutive life sentences. Of COURSE the developers want to have -every single- amazing feature in their game, with human-level AI, orchestral score, and A-list Hollywood voiceacting. Ya know what they also want? To make Game of the Year, the whole dev team become millionaires, zero piracy, and a perfect 100 Metacritic score. Guess how likely those all are? As the game gets closer to release date and/or the budget gets closer to $0.00, they have to make realistic, hard choices about which aspects of the game receive the most attention. What may have been the pet-feature of the lead designer may have to get axed in favor of making sure -everything- else works. If the official press releases and/or advertisements say a specific, bulletpoint-worthy feature is going to be present (split-screen co-op, create-a-character, 128-player online battles, etc.) and it isn't, THEN I could see claims of false advertising being warranted.

TL;DR
One programmer twittering his feature wish-list means jack, reviews of final products are your friend.

 

[Lightspeaker]

Won't go anywhere. Mass Effect 3 proved that already.

ME3 had a FAR STRONGER CASE for false advertising since things about the game were explicitly announced in interviews, by some of the most senior people involved in it, after the game was already completed and they turned out to be lies. So it wasn't even a case of "this feature did not make it to the final product". In the case of A:CM its based on a trailer, and trailers ALWAYS come with a "may not be representative of the final product" warning.

Based on that, no chance this is going anywhere.

 

[f1r2a3n4k5]

Every time I hear someone say "but they PROMISED" regarding a feature, I can't help but hear a whinny little kid's voice

Let's look at the facts. ACM released a demo which are generally, intended to be a reasonable representation of the final product. Pre-ordering is simply buying a product in advance. A product which you would expect to work as advertised.

So no, it's not whining to expect what is promised.

For example: I sell you an airline ticket to Paris. You've not received the promised service yet, but you give me your money on the goodwill that my airline will take you to Paris. A few months down the line, you get on the plane and I drop you off in Cairo. But I sold you a ticket to Paris. You'd be justifiably unhappy.
If I couldn't get a flight to Paris, I should have offered the passengers a refund to anyone that had no desire to go to Cairo. So you call a lawyer and he agrees to file a suit on behalf of everyone on the plane that was supposed to go to Paris. The airline is fined which will discourage my airline from dropping people off in Cairo instead of Paris.

I do accept though, that a better way to function as an industry (and for people that are Peter Molyneux) is to stop promising features which are unfeasible.

 

[Requia]

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.

Hardly, the core Fallout games have been handling radically different endings since the early 90s. You just have a short ending for each subplot, as these aren't really dependant on each other, and you can get away with skipping the really minor stuff.

 

[Mahoshonen]

It's important to realize that the law does allow differing degrees of interpretation-it doesn't have to be all or nothing. A court can decide on one had that a movie didn't mislead its customers just because the producer left a half second of footage in a TV spot on the editing floor, but a movie that looks like the next summer blockbuster in the adverts only to turn out to be an even worse redub of "Manos" The Hands of Fate most certainly did.

Gearbox has two problems: First the playable demo. While you can say that you mentioned that the demo might not reflect the final product, there's a point when that argument doesn't fly. It would be like if you ordered some hi-def TV online only to be sent some ancient Black-and-White set that hardly works-most juries won't be sympathetic when you cry "caveat emptor."

Second, Randy Pitchford's tweets can be presented as an admission of wrongdoing. While it's always a bit infuriating for a company like EA to plug it's ears and insist their's no problem, if your committed to not fixing whatever it is people say is broke, then you probably shouldn't concede that it's broken in the first place.

 

[Dogstile]

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

Depends, did they advertise the film as being a horror in those scenes and actually make a chick flick? Then sure.

That's what Colonial Marines did, I recall seeing a section when you hold out with the other marines, they were so proud of it that they showed it off relentlessly and then... Took it out. Nothing like that ever happens. They didn't bother mentioning that the welding of the doors and the frantic retreating with other troopers, etc was never going to happen in single player because they overestimated themselves.

Films aren't even a good comparison, beyond a genre change, you can't really go "that wasn't what I was expecting, I want my money back" because all trailers i've seen are 99% scenes that are actually in the film. Colonial marines wasn't even half that.