Aliens: Colonial Marines Lawsuit – Good or Bad?

After the train wreck which was Gearbox’s Aliens: Colonial Marines took everyone by surprise, it seems that someone has decided to take the developer to court over it. As a result of what he calls false advertising, the law firm Edelson LLC on behalf of a Mr. Damion Perrine have cited a number of civil and business codes they believe the creators of the game breached. A major issue targeted was Gearbox’s infamous high tech “demos” were playable segments which were claimed to directly reflect the overall quality. Featuring graphics far beyond what the game was capable of, scenes and details which were never actually in the game and ultimately a product far beyond what we actually got.

With such a strict embargo being placed upon the game to prevent negative reviews prior to release, and very few actual examples being given of the game’s actual quality, it’s not hard to see why this is being done. The sheer difference between what was promised and what we actually got is something a lot of people have gotten tired of over the years, and who can blame them. The problem here however, is which might come as a result of this lawsuit should it succeed.

[IanVanCheese]

Lawsuit hasn't got a hope in hell. You don't sue someone if they make something crap, you just don't buy from them again.

[Hellforged_Savant]

Most likely not, they certainly have an uphill battle. However, I was mostly focusing upon what such a lawsuit would potentially lead to in the industry if it was successful however.

[jimbobwahey]

Yeah, I'd like to see it win just so that it scares publishers and developers away from all the bullshots that plague the industry, along with shadier business practices that really shouldn't be allowed.

A personal peeve of mine is seeing all the adverts for Battlefield/Medal of Honor making the games look spectacular, but the console versions look/perform nothing like what's shown at all. The difference is even bigger than the Colonial Marines scandal.

[admiralvic]

I wouldn't say it doesn't have a hope in hell, since it does have some merit. Going off what I've seen between the demo and the full game, it certainly seems plausible to feel mislead, even if you had realistic expectations from it. However, I am sure Gearbox / Sega will fight this with everything they got just so they don't have to reveal what exactly happened. I mean, it's virtually impossible to explain what happened between then and now without coming off bad.

In either case, this topic needs to go to court. There needs to be a "limit" to how much polish you can put on something before it becomes false advertisement. The only downside to this is if they lose... we will probably see more companies do it because there is a precedent.

[MysticStrummer]

"The only downside to this is if they lose... we will probably see more companies do it because there is a precedent."

Companies have been doing it since advertising was born. Most commercials and ads imply people's lives will be improved if a certain product is bought and used. That's why this lawsuit doesn't have a chance in hell. It's just one more expensive waste of time for the courts and only the lawyers will benefit.

[admiralvic]

@ MysticStrummer

Why do some people feel the need to compare apples and oranges? If anything, it's like seeing the "perfect" foods in ad's (like that amazing looking Pizza), yet the real deal doesn't look anything like it. Regardless, you're looking at things the wrong way.

It stands to reason that the Alpha, Beta, Demo or whatever content will get better come the time of release. This is such a fundamental belief, that most impressions of demoed content is quite forgiving (as was a problem with Amy I believe), since it's hard to justify complaints about things in progress. The problem is, not only were things removed from the full game that appear in the demo (which really doesn't make a lot of sense if they're using the same scenes...), but it looks like they mixed up the alpha and final version of the game. This shouldn't be and should be answered... the simple fact neither company wants to say it, really makes me question how this trial is wrong.

[4lc4pon3]

ive never seen any of these cases win before but if it does it will make history. They did advertise the product even in videos showing a great product and then did not deliver at all. then tried to fix it by giving out an update to readd the missing graphics and all this other stuff and still failed.

I hope they lose it will scare devs and show them not to screw us

[mydyingparadiselost]

I'm sure lots of people would get pissed and ask for their money back if they saw a movie that was advertised with actors or effects that weren't in the actual movie, why does this mindset not apply to games?

[Jek_Porkins]

It's a bad thing, I buy games all the time that looked good in ads and even at E3, but then turn out to be average or even bad games. It doesn't mean I can, or should sue the company for it.

I mean I see people in cola ads having fun all the time, doesn't mean I can sue if I'm not doing all the crazy crap in the ads when I pop the top off...lol

[aLucidMind]

There's a difference between suing over a bad game and suing over false advertising. And your comparison is a strawman fallacy; no sane person would be expecting to be hallucinating a tropical paradise popping out everywhere in the city when they open Sierra Mist bottles, but every sane person would expect the demonstration (hence why they call it a "demo") to not only be representative of the product, but be a generally rougher version of the final product.

[Jek_Porkins]

Well how about Assassins Creed 3? That game looked fantastic at E3, so much fun. Too bad when I got the game it was slow paced and boring, the commercials and E3 misrepresented it, guess I'll have to start a lawsuit now!

It doesn't work like that, you cant complain because a game didn't meet your expectations. Advertisements are supposed to make you want to buy the game, by the other logic, people could have sued the crap out of Sony because their 2005 E3 was supposed to be PS3 footage and was all CGI, yet nobody sued them.

[aLucidMind]

Assassin's Creed 3 wasn't subject to false advertising because it was still representing the actual product. There is a difference between "this game didn't seem boring in the ads, but it is" and false advertising.

PS3 also had nothing that could be classified as false advertising, either, because all they were doing was demonstrating what the system was capable of. And behold, look at many of the games out right now and tell me none of them have hit the same quality or surpass it.

[Jek_Porkins]

No, they haven't. Some people might have bought a PS3 thinking those were the way the games would look, Sony didn't even come out and say if those were in game or cgi. Just goes to show you... the lawsuit will fail, like many before it.

[aLucidMind]

Either you don't play many games at all or you just haven't paid any attention whatsoever, because a few of the PS3 games (regardless how few there are) right now surpass the graphics that Killzone vid shown in 2005 had.

Misleadingly advertising something is in no way, shape, or form the same as false advertising in the way that the law considers it. They disregard claims that are subjective (ie "game is boring, ads weren't") because it is merely opinion. They disregard the claim that Sierra Mist is false advertising because no tropical paradise spawns out of nowhere, because nobody that is sane or even remotely intelligent would believe that.

As far as the law is concerned, Sony didn't falsely advertise because of exactly what you said: they didn't say anything beyond "here's some vids of what the console will be capable of". If someone took them to court, there would be no case; if Sony had said it was gameplay footage and it was CGI, the claim would have held some weight IF it was proven to not be possible as well.

Aliens: CM's demo showed the Xenomorphs using tactics and that the AI was good while the movements were fluid. The actual game's Xenomorphs are so dumb and incompetent that you can literally run past them and never fire a bullet. Watch the demo, then watch actual gameplay footage and you'll see just how poor your arguments claiming this was merely people misinterpreting the demo (which is amusing, how the hell can you misinterpret GAMEPLAY??) really are.

[MasterCornholio]

It shouldnt have happened in the first place. If only they delivered the game according to the gameplay demo that they revealed even though it might have been terrible at least they would have been honest about it.