SEGA/Gearbox in cIass action lawsuit over Aliens: Colonial Marines

Source: GS

Reason: False advertising

This just gets worse, doesn't it?

Very good. Misleading customers like this is appalling.

I only played the game at a friends house, didn't even pay a penny for it and even I feel ripped off. What an awful game, nothing like what they showed.

Wow California sure is desperate for money these days....

I'm still waiting on that Wii U version.

Good. I hope more companies get sued when they pull that kind of shit. If anything, early "real time" trailers should look  worse  than the final product. 

Lesson to developers/publishers: If you can't make a game look and play a certain way.. don't show it looking and playing that way. Simple enough, right?

I like how you being a huge nintendo fanboy are obvioulsy the first to post something negative about sega lol,but then again...

This just gets worse, doesn't it?

nintendoboy16

...that statement is very relevant when discussing nintendo,don´t forget about that sunshine. ;)

So that means Sega knew was Gearbox was pulling and was ok with it? And does whoever filed this really hope to win/gain anything? It's not like this is the first time this has happened.

Can't say I'm surprised this is happening tbh.

I like how you being a huge nintendo fanboy are obvioulsy the first to post something negative about sega lol,but then again...

[QUOTE="nintendoboy16"]

This just gets worse, doesn't it?

MrYaotubo

...that statement is very relevant when discussing nintendo,don´t forget about that sunshine. ;)

I like how you being a huge nintendo fanboy are obvioulsy the first to post something negative about sega lol,but then again...

[QUOTE="nintendoboy16"]

This just gets worse, doesn't it?

MrYaotubo

...that statement is very relevant when discussing nintendo,don´t forget about that sunshine. ;)

I like how you being a huge nintendo fanboy are obvioulsy the first to post something negative about sega lol,but then again...

[QUOTE="nintendoboy16"]

This just gets worse, doesn't it?

MrYaotubo

...that statement is very relevant when discussing nintendo,don´t forget about that sunshine. ;)

I was just sharing news on the whole Colonial Marines fiasco (which not only involves Sega, but Gearbox as well, though it's mostly the latter's fault), as if they didn't have enough of those.

This is the first "silly" lawsuit I agree with. Showcasing a pre-rendered demo like gameplay and claiming it being actual gameplay is a d!ck move. Even if I didnt agreed with the infamous Killzone 2 2006 "demo" at least sony never officially claimed it was gameplay footage, I think. Devs/pubs should be punished for this kind of cr4p

This is the first "silly" lawsuit I agree with. Showcasing a pre-rendered demo like gameplay and claiming it being actual gameplay is a d!ck move. Even if I didnt agreed with the infamous Killzone 2 2006 "demo" at least sony never officially claimed it was gameplay footage, I think. Devs/pubs should be punished for this kind of cr4p

Vatusus

They didn't claim the Killzone demo was gameplay. Though they did claim it was running on PS3 hardware, which was a lie.

I'm still waiting on that Wii U version.

Michael0134567

[QUOTE="Michael0134567"]

I'm still waiting on that Wii U version.

AcidThunder

I know. :(

I'm still waiting on that Wii U version.

Michael0134567

[QUOTE="Michael0134567"]

I'm still waiting on that Wii U version.

nintendoboy16

What do you think it means?

[QUOTE="nintendoboy16"][QUOTE="Michael0134567"]

I'm still waiting on that Wii U version.

Michael0134567

What do you think it means?

[QUOTE="Michael0134567"]

[QUOTE="nintendoboy16"] Does that mean what I think it means? :Pnintendoboy16

What do you think it means?

I'm no good at guessing. :(

I hate to play devils advocate, but it happens with movies all the time.

Not to say aliens isn't a bad game, it's awful. But the reviews came out and people saw them. 

And to take what someone said from joystiq "Everyone knows demos are a work in progress. It is actual gameplay at that moment. It's like suing because a movie trailer mislead you. Hollywood does that all the time with no repercussion. Sometimes you don't even seen scenes that are in the trailer in the actual movie."

They are constantly reminding you demos are not representive of the final product.

This would set a very bad precedent, IMHO.

Games don't usually come together until the very tail end of development, and in order to create promotional content, the team usually has to spend time creating a "verticla slice" of the game. Now, typically you can't just create a representation of what the game looks like and plays at that moment in development, simply because assets aren't completed, haven't been optomized, story elements haven't been written, or finalized, gameplay mechanics have yet to be iterated upon, etc, etc, 

So these verticla slices are, by NECESSITY, fabrications, meant to convey to the press/gamers what the team expects the final product to be like, not what it actually is at that time (which is probably a bug ridden,  unfinished, unoptomized mess).

If this works, you can expect a tightening down of NDA's, less access to data on games before release, etc.

Look at Bioshock infinite, for example, by the devs own admissions, the demo's shown off to the press, nto only changed radically from one to the next, they differed significnantly from the final product, and at the time, they didn't even know if having Elizabeth as a companion AI as they portrayed her would even be possible.

The only difference here is that in the end, for Infinite, things came together, and the final product was great. But what if it hadn't come together as well? Should they have been sued because their previous demos weren't what the final product ended up being?

I think this is really a non-isue in today's world. 20 years ago, when the only way to find out about a game was usually though a magazine, owned by the friggin console manufacturer, yeah. But today, the moment a game comes out (or heck even before often times) there are video play thoughs, commentaries and reviews.

If you're stupid enough to trust a company without a veyr good track record outside fo a particular franchise and pre-order a game... that's on you. Unless they promised you Aliens and gave you Pokeman instead, I'd say your SOL.

I hate to play devils advocate, but it happens with movies all the time.

Not to say aliens isn't a bad game, it's awful. But the reviews came out and people saw them. 

And to take what someone said from joystiq "Everyone knows demos are a work in progress. It is actual gameplay at that moment. It's like suing because a movie trailer mislead you. Hollywood does that all the time with no repercussion. Sometimes you don't even seen scenes that are in the trailer in the actual movie."

They are constantly reminding you demos are not representive of the final product.

Animal-Mother

This. All people are doing are wanting to sue over a shitty product that failed to meet expectations, and that is nothing at all new, in the gaming industry or any industry for that matter.

Wouldn't be surprised if Sega ends up suing Gearbox over this too. They basically took Sega's funding, spent it on Borderlands development and shipped the development of Aliens off to some crappy dev on the cheap.

More to this shady business than just the fake early gameplay footage.

This would set a very bad precedent, IMHO.

Games don't usually come together until the very tail end of development, and in order to create promotional content, the team usually has to spend time creating a "verticla slice" of the game. Now, typically you can't just create a representation of what the game looks like and plays at that moment in development, simply because assets aren't completed, haven't been optomized, story elements haven't been written, or finalized, gameplay mechanics have yet to be iterated upon, etc, etc, 

So these verticla slices are, by NECESSITY, fabrications, meant to convey to the press/gamers what the team expects the final product to be like, not what it actually is at that time (which is probably a bug ridden,  unfinished, unoptomized mess).

If this works, you can expect a tightening down of NDA's, less access to data on games before release, etc.

Look at Bioshock infinite, for example, by the devs own admissions, the demo's shown off to the press, nto only changed radically from one to the next, they differed significnantly from the final product, and at the time, they didn't even know if having Elizabeth as a companion AI as they portrayed her would even be possible.

The only difference here is that in the end, for Infinite, things came together, and the final product was great. But what if it hadn't come together as well? Should they have been sued because their previous demos weren't what the final product ended up being?

I think this is really a non-isue in today's world. 20 years ago, when the only way to find out about a game was usually though a magazine, owned by the friggin console manufacturer, yeah. But today, the moment a game comes out (or heck even before often times) there are video play thoughs, commentaries and reviews.

If you're stupid enough to trust a company without a veyr good track record outside fo a particular franchise and pre-order a game... that's on you. Unless they promised you Aliens and gave you Pokeman instead, I'd say your SOL.

Kinthalis

Why are publishers so afraid to show alpha and beta footage of games ? Why does it have to be a fabricated verticale slice ?

I don't think there has ever been a lawsuit about a game that ended up looking better than what was originally shown. Which is almost always the case, in this case however what was shown was said to be gameplay and looked way better and more fun than the actual game. Animations and graphics were better. The final game was worse in every single regard. That's not how game development works, it's not supposed to be about tricking your consumers. Even if you do fabricate gameplay at least make it pretty close to what the final game is going to be.

So perhaps Naughty Dog and Guerilla Games should be sued also (along with many others) after all everyone has seen the E3 Uncharted and Kill Zone screen shots directly compared to the actually released product.

/activate flame shield :P

[QUOTE="Kinthalis"]

Why are publishers so afraid to show alpha and beta footage of games ?

R4gn4r0k

Precislye because they don't want to be accused of misleading consumers/the press.

Why does it have to be a fabricated verticale slice ?

Because most games don't come together until very late in the development cycle. Some games, even a few months before they officially come out, are essentially broken and unoptimized. 

I don't think there has ever been a lawsuit about a game that ended up looking better than what was originally shown. Which is almost always the case, in this case however what was shown was said to be gameplay and looked way better and more fun than the actual game. Animations and graphics were better. The final game was worse in every single regard. That's not how game development works, it's not supposed to be about tricking your consumers. Even if you do fabricate gameplay at least make it pretty close to what the final game is going to be.

How can a controled, demo, ever get the point of "fun" accross? And how do you quantify "fun" anyway? Animaitons and graphics were better, because they hadn't been optomized yet. Most artistic development is done with high quality assets, and are then optimized (dumbed down essentially) to meet the requirements of the engine running on a particular hardware target.

I think the main difference between the demo and the actual game, is the sence of danger from the aliens, and the tension of the gameplay, as well as the graphics.

But, wiht the exception fo the graphics, that stuff is hard to quantify. Just because you cna run through the level and the aliens will ignore you, doesn't mean that you can't play it slowly to reproduce the tensions fo a stealth game. Also, the graphics thing is laughable. now a days, 9/10 games show either pre-render CGI, or the Pc version, or the console version PRE optimization running on a dev kit PC. Most of the footage of games on TV/online is never what the actual game will look like on an 8 year old console.

I'm not saying this game was good. It was a horrible, buggy, embarrasing piee of cr@p and a total cash grab. But that's why we have reviews. You wait for a review or walkthrough, many of which came out the day of release, or even before, and THEN you decide whether to purchase a game or not.

The day the game came out, unless you were an idiot, you KNEW it was a piece of Cr@p.

Good, I hope it costs Gearbox a ton of money, never buying another game from them ever again. Try and play us once (Duke Nukem), ok... but try to do it twice? (aliens CM), **** you gearbox

Good. I was disappointed that they game turned out the way it did. I wont buy another gearbox game. Heil68

[QUOTE="Heil68"]Good. I was disappointed that they game turned out the way it did. I wont buy another gearbox game. DarkLink77

Class Action Lawsuits = no one wins any real money.

The chances of winning are slim.  How many movie trailers etc., are misleading?

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="Heil68"]Good. I was disappointed that they game turned out the way it did. I wont buy another gearbox game. AcidSoldner

So perhaps Naughty Dog and Guerilla Games should be sued also (along with many others) after all everyone has seen the E3 Uncharted and Kill Zone screen shots directly compared to the actually released product.

/activate flame shield :P

GarGx1

Been thinking the same, after all, shouldn't showcasing the demoes being played on the high-end PCs and passing them off as console footage on E3 and similiar large events be considered false advertising as well?

[QUOTE="GarGx1"]

So perhaps Naughty Dog and Guerilla Games should be sued also (along with many others) after all everyone has seen the E3 Uncharted and Kill Zone screen shots directly compared to the actually released product.

/activate flame shield :P

Rocker6

Been thinking the same, after all, shouldn't showcasing the demoes being played on the high-end PCs and passing them off as console footage on E3 and similiar large events be considered false advertising as well?

I hate to play devils advocate, but it happens with movies all the time.

Not to say aliens isn't a bad game, it's awful. But the reviews came out and people saw them. 

And to take what someone said from joystiq "Everyone knows demos are a work in progress. It is actual gameplay at that moment. It's like suing because a movie trailer mislead you. Hollywood does that all the time with no repercussion. Sometimes you don't even seen scenes that are in the trailer in the actual movie."

They are constantly reminding you demos are not representive of the final product.

Animal-Mother

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="AcidSoldner"]I would say the same but.... they just got the Homeworld IP :(AcidSoldner

Precislye because they don't want to be accused of misleading consumers/the press.

Kinthalis

Misleading ? How is actual game development misleading ?

Because most games don't come together until very late in the development cycle. Some games, even a few months before they officially come out, are essentially broken and unoptimized. 

Kinthalis

That's true. I'm not saying they can't make a fabricated video. But I am saying though that it should not be totally different from the final game and be claimed to be 'actual in-game footage' or 'actual gameplay' as was the case here.

 

How can a controled, demo, ever get the point of "fun" accross? And how do you quantify "fun" anyway? Animaitons and graphics were better, because they hadn't been optomized yet. Most artistic development is done with high quality assets, and are then optimized (dumbed down essentially) to meet the requirements of the engine running on a particular hardware target.

 

I think the main difference between the demo and the actual game, is the sence of danger from the aliens, and the tension of the gameplay, as well as the graphics.

 

But, wiht the exception fo the graphics, that stuff is hard to quantify. Just because you cna run through the level and the aliens will ignore you, doesn't mean that you can't play it slowly to reproduce the tensions fo a stealth game. Also, the graphics thing is laughable. now a days, 9/10 games show either pre-render CGI, or the Pc version, or the console version PRE optimization running on a dev kit PC. Most of the footage of games on TV/online is never what the actual game will look like on an 8 year old console.

I'm not saying this game was good. It was a horrible, buggy, embarrasing piee of cr@p and a total cash grab. But that's why we have reviews. You wait for a review or walkthrough, many of which came out the day of release, or even before, and THEN you decide whether to purchase a game or not.

The day the game came out, unless you were an idiot, you KNEW it was a piece of Cr@p.

Kinthalis

There weren't any reviews out before the release. Because of an embargo. That is part of the lawsuit too.

Poor Sega. They need to cut all ties with hillbilly Randy

Poor Sega. They need to cut all ties with hillbilly Randy

RR360DD

Normally something like this would really chap my hide. I would see it as indicative of consumers being whiny, complaining, and entitled. Just like how I saw the Mass Effect debacle. It was despicable.

However this is a case where I completely agree and I like that people are fighting back and that Sega (whom I love) will have to answer for this travesty. Not the travesty of making a bad game mind you, because as much as we would love it to be it's not actually a crime to make an unentertaining game. But the travesty of lying about what the final product would be. This was a widely publicized game in the recent year and they should have to answer for what happened. Hopefully not to the tune of 20 million dollars, but still. Don't lie about your product.

Normally something like this would really chap my hide. I would see it as indicative of consumers being whiny, complaining, and entitled. Just like how I saw the Mass Effect debacle. It was despicable.

However this is a case where I completely agree and I like that people are fighting back and that Sega (whom I love) will have to answer for this travesty. Not the travesty of making a bad game mind you, because as much as we would love it to be it's not actually a crime to make an unentertaining game. But the travesty of lying about what the final product would be. This was a widely publicized game in the recent year and they should have to answer for what happened. Hopefully not to the tune of 20 million dollars, but still. Don't lie about your product.

Darth-Samus

Completely agree with what you said. Gamers can be whiny and entitled but in this case I think everyone that has seen the early trailers and the final product, can agree with this being wrong.

This shouldn't turn into a financial nightmare for either SEGA or Gearbox but I only hope they learn a lesson about misleading customers.

[QUOTE="Darth-Samus"]

Normally something like this would really chap my hide. I would see it as indicative of consumers being whiny, complaining, and entitled. Just like how I saw the Mass Effect debacle. It was despicable.

However this is a case where I completely agree and I like that people are fighting back and that Sega (whom I love) will have to answer for this travesty. Not the travesty of making a bad game mind you, because as much as we would love it to be it's not actually a crime to make an unentertaining game. But the travesty of lying about what the final product would be. This was a widely publicized game in the recent year and they should have to answer for what happened. Hopefully not to the tune of 20 million dollars, but still. Don't lie about your product.

R4gn4r0k

Completely agree with what you said. Gamers can be whiny and entitled but in this case I think everyone that has seen the early trailers and the final product, can agree with this being wrong.

This shouldn't turn into a financial nightmare for either SEGA or Gearbox but I only hope they learn a lesson about misleading customers.

I do think that Sega and Gearbox should face a stiff enough penalty that they learn a lesson from this but most definitely not enough that it severely damages either company and puts people lively hoods at risk. (damaged reputations are a lot harder to repair)

Sega have some awsome developers in their stable and Gearbox are capable of making good games, at least when Randy 'Lying Bastard' Pitchford stops spouting bs about every game that Gearbox are involved with. (apparently Mr Pitchford doesn't like being called a liar, which to me is just another example of his aversion to the truth :P )

Saw this one coming a mile away.

[QUOTE="GarGx1"]

So perhaps Naughty Dog and Guerilla Games should be sued also (along with many others) after all everyone has seen the E3 Uncharted and Kill Zone screen shots directly compared to the actually released product.

/activate flame shield :P

Rocker6

Been thinking the same, after all, shouldn't showcasing the demoes being played on the high-end PCs and passing them off as console footage on E3 and similiar large events be considered false advertising as well?

Noone deserves to get sued more for false advertising than Lionhead

The War Z or whatever was much worse. Never heard anything about someone doing something, probably because it wasn't made by a big company.

[QUOTE="Vatusus"]

This is the first "silly" lawsuit I agree with. Showcasing a pre-rendered demo like gameplay and claiming it being actual gameplay is a d!ck move. Even if I didnt agreed with the infamous Killzone 2 2006 "demo" at least sony never officially claimed it was gameplay footage, I think. Devs/pubs should be punished for this kind of cr4p

R4gn4r0k

They didn't claim the Killzone demo was gameplay. Though they did claim it was running on PS3 hardware, which was a lie.

Even if it was a video it could still be "running" on the PS3 blu-ray = hardware so... it was not a lie :P

does this mean that we can sue Epic for that Mad world trailer too?

HAlf joke aside I disagree with suing, but I can understand the people doing it, and cheering on.

We were shown a great many things of ALiens: Colonial marines, and we got pretty much nothing of what was shown, which IS false advertising. The difference between the above, and A:CM was that in no way did Epic state that that trailer was gameplay, Gearbox did.

To blame though? little idea, Sega supervised, and gearbox made aswell as outsourced. One could blame Sega for not keeping a better eye, or question Gearbox where all those gameplay trailers' assets went.

But suing? *sigh* Gearbox allready suffered an enourmous blow to their credibility, and SEGA likely did not make a return on all those years of investments. The game was just pure poison allround to anyone involved including those who bought it.

Geeze, you people are an entitled bunch, aren't you?