Update: Class Action Claims Colonial Marines Falsely Advertised

[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.

 

[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.