[FireSpawn]

So I just came across This Article and several others which say the same thing.

Now in this case, I feel it is quite justified. All the trailers and publicity were footage taken from the demo, even right up to release date, and what people recieved was not what was advertised. I don't particularly care who wins this suit as the publicity will hurt both companies anyway, but I do hope that the message will be conveyed. While differences between demos from games still in developement and the finished thing are to be expected, A:CM essentially spat in the eye of that with a big yellow loogie.

So, what do you guys and gals think about it; Good thing? Bad thing? Death of the game demo?

[Mobius]

I think this game was ranked 4/10 by Game Informer. They just don't recommend it.

[Sarafan]

I think it'll be a good thing if the guy wins this, many companies act like this and deliver something entirely different, its about time gamers get what they were advertised.

[An4ximandros]

 Because of the disclaimer that says the demo did not represent the final game And the fact his lawsuit is about preordering, I heavily doubt this will go anywhere. Even if it does, it is likely he'll get power stomped in court.

[Suongadon]

Would be nice if the ruling put an end to the review-embargo crap, but I doubt any of it will go anywhere. 'Course, not a lawyer in California, so there could be case law that supports the plaintiff. Or the judge might be an Aliens fan.

[Klaustrophobia]

review embargo isn't a legal thing, it's an industry thing.  reviewers are perfectly free to post reviews early.  but then that will be the last review they ever write, as they will no longer be getting advance copies.

[Spoon]

lawsuit against all the lies and false advertisment for EA's simcity when?

[Dragon]

If there'll be a precedent, I'm calling dibs on suing the guys who made Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing (yes, I know I don't live in US yet, but I'm planning to at some point of my education).


EDIT: For those who don't know, BR:OtRR it's essentially a tech demo somebody had the audacity to ship like it was an actual game. And it wasn't a simple mistake, either. They released a patch for the thing (not that it helped much, considering you could still drive through the walls and go FTL if you hold reverse long enough...).

[BloodEagle]

1.) I would really like to see something like this get passed on the Federal level for every finished product sold.  Because I haven't seen Truth in Advertising law do much of anything, lately.
2.) Demo footage at PAX does not count as a finished product (as their disclaimer noted).
3.) There are several games on Steam that outright lie about what's inside the box.  They should focus on those.

[Lorric]

If there'll be a precedent, I'm calling dibs on suing the guys who made Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing (yes, I know I don't live in US yet, but I'm planning to at some point of my education).


EDIT: For those who don't know, BR:OtRR it's essentially a tech demo somebody had the audacity to ship like it was an actual game. And it wasn't a simple mistake, either. They released a patch for the thing (not that it helped much, considering you could still drive through the walls and go FTL if you hold reverse long enough...).

I actually thought about mentioning that! I just didn't really know what to say exactly

Looks like the company has broken up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_Stone

[The E]

1.) I would really like to see something like this get passed on the Federal level for every finished product sold.  Because I haven't seen Truth in Advertising law do much of anything, lately.

You have, actually. Marketing has evolved so that pinning a campaign down with a TiA lawsuit is almost impossible. You may feel as if a given campaign broke them, or bent them, but proving that is really hard.

[An4ximandros]

If there'll be a precedent, I'm calling dibs on suing the guys who made Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing (yes, I know I don't live in US yet, but I'm planning to at some point of my education).

EDIT: For those who don't know, BR:OtRR it's essentially a tech demo somebody had the audacity to ship like it was an actual game. And it wasn't a simple mistake, either. They released a patch for the thing (not that it helped much, considering you could still drive through the walls and go FTL if you hold reverse long enough...).

Holy S***.

EDIT: Ahahaahaha!

[Dragon]

So yeah. And have you seen the box? "18 wheels of thunder" or something like that, and box are making it look like an actual game. Aliens:CM have nothing on Big Rigs with regards to TiA issues.

[The E]

Wait, you were actually serious?

Big Rigs was an incredible failure, yes. However, unlike A:CM, it was never going to get much interest; There never was a big hype surrounding it in the first place. Equating the two issues is a stupid thing to do.

(Hell, if you are desperate to bring Big Rigs into this discussion, why not concentrate on WarZ, made by the same developer? THAT game had some pretty legitimate issues with truth in advertising.)

[Dragon]

Wait, you were actually serious?

Semi-serious, really. When I've heard of this, I was amazed the devs weren't sued into oblivion by disappointed customers, but I guess that's because the game was obscure. You're right that Aliens:CM was advertised a lot more and thus it was much bigger deal.
Also, thanks for telling me about War Z. I can accept, a company releasing one abomination like Big Rigs. But they did it again! A vid, for the record: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtKAm3nzg6I Says it all, really, and it's not even funny. Talk about refuge in audacity.

[TrashMan]

Wether or not something garners much interest on not has no bearing on wether it sucks or not, of it a serious breach of law happened.

[Dragon]

Yeah, but if something gathers a lot of interest, it gets bought by a lot of people. Also, IIRC, Aliens:CM had a preorder option. With War Z, most people had a chance not to buy it before reading a review or seeing a vid. On the other hand, people who bought Aliens:CM were only going by demo footage. It would be alright, if only they showed stuff from actual game before release (so people could cancel the preorder if they didn't like it), which they didn't. Still, lies are lies, and in both cases, I think that law has been seriously violated. There's advertising trickery and there's lying in customers' faces, and here we're talking about the latter.

[Spoon]

An other game comes to mind. Sword of the stars 2.
Released under the lie of "we accidently uploaded the wrong build for release!" while the game was flatout not ready yet, somewhere in early alpha with not even a working options menu.
Charging money for incomplete products seem to be all the rage nowadays.

Most F2P games just hide under the 'ITS A BETA VERSION' blanket nowadays too, like MWO (or any other recent F2P game, but I remember MWO as it had stalward forum knights that would dismiss every bit of valid critism with BETA BETA BETA), but they'll all gladly take your money for microtransactions.

[Phantom Hoover]

Then there's the fashion of selling an open alpha and acting like that absolves you of any responsibility for testing your damn code.

[The E]

uhhhh

Yes, it does. Alpha means "This is untested, there may be dragons here". However, it also means "We're still working on it, if you find bugs please report them" (The dev's obligation, of course, is to actually do the work, but complaining about alpha-quality games being unfinished strikes me as a bit silly).