Update: Class Action Claims Colonial Marines Falsely Advertised

[Shuu]

Hm... the legal debator in me understands that no real promise was ever made the game would be anywhere near as good as the vertical slice (or whatever they're calling it) made it looked. Buuuut, the decent human being in me does want to see them commit seppuku in front of me to regain their honour...

 

[Strazdas]

Seems like the same could be said of Bioshock: Infinite, being that a lot changed between the early demo trailers (all containing "in game footage") with the final product. Elizabeth completely changed in terms of appearance, powers and situation. Loadsa scripted stuff never appeared in the final product. Even the plot looks to have been entirely re-written in between trailers.

But Bioshock: Infinite was good, so I guess people wouldn't go to the trouble of suing them for false advertising?

Except that people did not pre-order the game based on the early demos of Bioshock Infinte and all changes were announced and made public before the game was released

This lawsuit is stupid. No one forced people to pre-order this game based on incomplete information. The AC:M's customers chose to buy an unfinished product, as is the case with everyone who pre-orders. Publishers are catching on that they don't have to fully deliver on a game because they already have your money. They build up your good will and then cash in on it. It's a 100% un-sustainable business practice, but it's not illegal. It's deceptive, but that is the whole point of advertising, marketing and PR: to trick you into buying something.

so if you go to a restaurant, order food, eat it and get poisoned, you cant complain, because noone forced you to come and buy food here right?

 

[timboo_drow]

[/quote]
so if you go to a restaurant, order food, eat it and get poisoned, you cant complain, because noone forced you to come and buy food here right?[/quote]

Not quite the same thing. The only harm caused by pre-ordering AC:M was butt hurt gamers feeling duped. The crime you describe is negligence causing bodily harm, and is most certainly punishable by law. Over-enthusiastic marketing is not a crime. It's a bad business practice because it hurts consumer happiness and faith, and in any other industry companies like Gearbox would go out of business very quickly, but gamers are not discerning enough as consumers. We allow ourselves to be lead by hype and hyperbole and are attached to nostalgia-fueled dedication to publishers and franchises.

Publishers have merely figured out how to properly market to turn the most profit. It's a short-term gain, to be sure, since even the most egregious fan-boy will eventually lose faith, but publishers know that won't happen until they've made a ridiculous amount of money.

The only way to stop the cycle is to stop pre-ordering and stop buying bad games, period.

*EDIT*
Just to clarify; I hate marketing and I'm certainly not defending the practice, merely stating that it isn't illegal. Perhaps it should be though. Wouldn't it be great if companies were limited in the amount of self-promotion they were allowed to engage in? Then the market system really trully would work because companies would have to rely almost entirely on consumer happiness and word of mouth to promote their products.

 

[Slash2x]

Not quite the same thing. The only harm caused by pre-ordering AC:M was butt hurt gamers feeling duped. The crime you describe is negligence causing bodily harm, and is most certainly punishable by law. Over-enthusiastic marketing is not a crime. It's a bad business practice because it hurts consumer happiness and faith, and in any other industry companies like Gearbox would go out of business very quickly, but gamers are not discerning enough as consumers. We allow ourselves to be lead by hype and hyperbole and are attached to nostalgia-fueled dedication to publishers and franchises.

Publishers have merely figured out how to properly market to turn the most profit. It's a short-term gain, to be sure, since even the most egregious fan-boy will eventually lose faith, but publishers know that won't happen until they've made a ridiculous amount of money.

The only way to stop the cycle is to stop pre-ordering and stop buying bad games, period.

*EDIT*
Just to clarify; I hate marketing and I'm certainly not defending the practice, merely stating that it isn't illegal. Perhaps it should be though. Wouldn't it be great if companies were limited in the amount of self-promotion they were allowed to engage in? Then the market system really trully would work because companies would have to rely almost entirely on consumer happiness and word of mouth to promote their products.

Except it is illegal [http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/policystmt/ad-decept.htm] in the USA...

Read section II. THERE MUST BE A REPRESENTATION, OMISSION, OR PRACTICE THAT IS LIKELY TO MISLEAD THE CONSUMER.
Marketing and point-of-sales practices that are likely to mislead consumers are also deceptive. For instance, in bait and switch cases, a violation occurs when the offer to sell the product is not a bona fide offer.14 The Commission has also found deception where a sales representative misrepresented the purpose of the initial contact with customers.15 When a product is sold, there is an implied representation that the product is fit for the purposes for which it is sold. When it is not, deception occurs.16 There may be a concern about the way a product or service is marketed, such as where inaccurate or incomplete information is provided.17 A failure to perform services promised under a warranty or by contract can also be deceptive.18

So stating that your product will provide X and you give Y and it is not equal to or greater than X, is illegal. Even the screenshots on the back of the box are not from ANY version of the game. The game presented was not the game sold.

 

[timboo_drow]

[/quote]

Except it is illegal [http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/policystmt/ad-decept.htm] in the USA...

Read section II. THERE MUST BE A REPRESENTATION, OMISSION, OR PRACTICE THAT IS LIKELY TO MISLEAD THE CONSUMER.
Marketing and point-of-sales practices that are likely to mislead consumers are also deceptive. For instance, in bait and switch cases, a violation occurs when the offer to sell the product is not a bona fide offer.14 The Commission has also found deception where a sales representative misrepresented the purpose of the initial contact with customers.15 When a product is sold, there is an implied representation that the product is fit for the purposes for which it is sold. When it is not, deception occurs.16 There may be a concern about the way a product or service is marketed, such as where inaccurate or incomplete information is provided.17 A failure to perform services promised under a warranty or by contract can also be deceptive.18

So stating that your product will provide X and you give Y and it is not equal to or greater than X, is illegal. Even the screenshots on the back of the box are not from ANY version of the game. The game presented was not the game sold.[/quote]

All of those conditions you are quoting are not happening in the case of a disappointing video game. It's far too subjective. As far as the courts are concerned Gearbox created a functioning video game, and therefore not guilty of any false advertising; they delivered what they said they were going to deliver, a video game about aliens. Just because customers don't end up liking it doesn't mean that any false advertising happened.

The concept of the "Bullshot" has been with us in the video game community for years, the fact that publishers are getting more bold in how they use them is a shitty practice and one that should be punished by lack of sales, but I still maintain that it is not currently illegal, though I would be happy if this kind of sneaky marketing was made illegal.

 

[jeanfrancis]

Definitely, in light of the fact that the class action law-suites dependably work out. Much the same as Mass Effect 3's, where they even out lied and deceive the buyer base without as a much as a "may not act for last item" notice.

"Decisions will matter and i think it won't make too much differences.

Nothing happened to that. I question anything will happen to this. The measure of safety the diversion business gains is aggravating once in a while. Of course, when they have an amusement with firearms, viciousness or sky deny.It will be everywhere on the news however when they lie and trick the customer "lol its only a film diversion, they're for children, lets not give a second thought or consider it important, move along."

http://www.classaction.ca/classaction/actions

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Well,the best thing about gaming is that you can chose not to buy the game. An if you did buy it, you can sell or get it refunded and part exchanged for something else. Or just rent it. Also, with the internet, you can communicate how shit the game is to every person ever. Those people wont buy it and A:CM will fail and the companies involved will feel the pain of low sales and low profits. They need to learn that with the internet involved, they cant just release a shitty product, people will be online bitching about it on day one. Its better to just put the game on hold and work on it and thus a positive review on release and more profit made.

My only sadness is that this game had the chance to be an awesome new ip. An now, because of greed, lies and bullshit from developers and publishers, there will never be a sequel made and the Aliens licence will be black balled as being worthless again. I really dont want to wait years for another Aliens based game.

 

[Lightknight]

"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.""

I don't think anyone has a problem with people showing works in progress. The issue comes when what we're shown is a blatant misrepresentation of the work in progress. The demo was FAR more advanced than the game ever got close to being. It's basically a clear cut example of false advertisement when you call it a demo of something that does not and will never exist.

 

[Lightknight]

Well,the best thing about gaming is that you can chose not to buy the game.

When you see something called a "demo" of a game and decide to purchase that game based on what turns out to be a lie, the ability to accurately determine if you want the game is robbed from you by deceit. This is why consumer laws protect us from companies that sell their goods by lying to us.

 

[Colin Bagley]

The problem with all Adverts, not just gaming Ads, is that they simple don't sell their product. They sell the image of their product. Or some magic ticket to an amazing lifestyle. Just look at Car adverts, Alcohol, Fragrance, Movie, Jewelry ect.
I think Cracked.com did an After Hours video about false advertising in regards to foods.

I'm still waiting for Lynx body spray to be taken to court every time a teenager uses some and isn't instantly hounded by hundreds of bikini-clad super models.

 

[lordmardok]

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!

Honestly we should support this not because it's a money pinata or whatever, but because the game industry DOES need to be held accountable for the awful business decisions it makes at the expense of the consumer. Even if the class action suit doesn't get through the company will have shelled out tens of thousands of dollars or more that it wouldn't have had to if it had just been fucking honest with us. It will make game companies more careful about how and what they advertise and if the cases gets through and the prosecution wins then they'll have even more incentive to not pull that shit in the future.

 

[RicoADF]

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.

The argument is that they didn't inform people about the change, which they are required to do (atleast in alot of countries), which is why if you lived outside the US you generally could get a refund. I didn't because i was happy with the purchase (I don't let hype get the better of me), but I could have.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

I'm not normally in favour of lawsuits that aren't really very solid, but I hope this one wins. The prefabricated footage was used basically until the game came out. There were points when people could purchase the game having seen only the footage. If anything comes out of this, I hope publishers are forced to allow reviews/release representative material in advance of when a game can be purchased, pre-ordered or otherwise.

I think the main issue here is that the demo footage was not work in progress, and not a demo, not intended as part of the game, but fabricated, and that was masked deliberately.

 

[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!

Honestly we should support this not because it's a money pinata or whatever, but because the game industry DOES need to be held accountable for the awful business decisions it makes at the expense of the consumer. Even if the class action suit doesn't get through the company will have shelled out tens of thousands of dollars or more that it wouldn't have had to if it had just been fucking honest with us. It will make game companies more careful about how and what they advertise and if the cases gets through and the prosecution wins then they'll have even more incentive to not pull that shit in the future.

Hopefully it does send a message about quality control, and one I was hopinh Sega had learend from it's horrible Sonic titles between shadow and black knight...

Tens of thousands won't be enough though, itd have to b e in the millions before anyone bats an eyelid at it sadly.

 

[Do4600]

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?)

Yes and Yes. The video game company sends press packets containing the game before it's release to reviewers on the condition of a non-disclosure agreement, that the reviewer will not publish on the results of the game content until a certain date. Usually the reviews are released a couple days or a day before the actual release of the game, if the game company directs the reviewers to release it after the game release, you can tell something strange is going on. If the reviewer releases a review before the date stipulated by the disclosure agreement I believe they could be sued and probably not be trusted with a press packet ever again, effectively ending their career as a launch day reviewer.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Personally, I would rather be shown nothing until the game is released, rather than be shown a lie

True, no information is preferable to misinformation.
But at the same time, no information means we're effectively back to blind guessing...or misinformation if we're going on marketing.