>company advertises a product
>says it has several features and functions
>demonstrates these in commercials or conferences
>product is released
>has only half the features and functions as advertised
>company gets sued for false advertising
>company advertises a video game
>says it has several features and mechanics
>demonstrates these in commercials or conferences
>game is released
>has only half the features and mechanics as advertised
>no legal repercussions, company continues to falsely advertise more games
Why is this OK? It's literally illegal.
Because we're all really dead in some circle of Hell? Whatever the abstract mysterious one is. The one where it's SO lifelike but something's just off. I think that might be the first circle of Hell.
>>339684947
because videogames don't matter to people who count in society
e.g., not you (or me)
Its just a game bro
>>339685448
I think you mean "i.e."
>>339685448
So it comes down to consumers being too cucked by companies to do something about it?
Figures.
stop being such an entitled gamer
>>339684947
Has anyone ever actually had the balls to sue a company over this? It'd be interesting to see.
Also, a lot of games have airtight contracts you need to consent to before playing which may or may not hold up in court.
>>339685549
exempli gratia
i know what i mean.
it just works
>>339685715
Aliens: Colonial Marines and Luminosity are the big ones.
Because marketing hype for a pre-release product is not the same as mis-representing a finished product's actual details.
The only way you'd have a legal leg to stand on here is if the product itself, as completed, were to be advertised with those features.
Saying "this game will have a huge multiplayer mode!" during development, and then never realizing it, is not false advertising.
If the actual game box/steam page/etc claimed it had multiplayer, and it didn't, THAT would be false advertising.
Even early access games usually are not bound to such things because a development roadmap is not a legally binding promise of delivery of product, so in most cases as long as you get A game in the end, you're legally fulfilled on your transaction. You can seek a refund, but not legal action.
>>339685938
>Aliens: Colonial Marines
>>339685938
>Aliens: Colonial Marines
Did they win? The only evidence they would need is to have the judge sit down and play that buggy piece of shit for five minutes.
>Footage shown is [Pre-Alpha/Alpha/Beta/Unfinished product]
That covers their ass most of the time
When it's huge shit like with Aliens: Colonial Marines, lawsuits DO happen.
>>339686050
Gearbox got away scot-free, which is bullshit because Randy "The Faggot" Pitchford straight up said "actual gameplay" on his twitter postings for the game videos that didn't end up in the actual game. There's no news once it was just between the initial guy suing and Sega so I don't know if they settled or what. The judge ruled that "everyone who bought the game is too broad because there's no way to prove that all those people saw the pre-release trailers".
>>339686373
/v/ loves hyperbole, but seriously, fuck Randy. He's such a fucking slime-ball cunt. He deserves prison at best or forcefully removed from video games at worst.
>>339685938
Oh they got sued? Howd that go?
>>339685968
What about stuff like bullshots? Especially in commercials after a game is released. I mean before and after GTAV was released ALL of the media and advertising for it was bullshots or prerendered footage, not from the actual game.
Or what about games that don't work when bought? Like the battlefield games or sim city by ea. They didn't work on launch day. Imagine buying a product and it doesn't work out of the box, but it's not a defect in the product, the product was simply made to not work. That's a scam.
>>339686463
wut? who?
>>339686482
>games by EA
EA's been sued often for their shitty business practices.
http://www.entlawdigest.com/2013/07/31/2591.htm
>>339686546
Google.
>>339686482
>What about stuff like bullshots? Especially in commercials after a game is released
Depends on what context it's presented. You could easily claim it was just promo material (which is assumed anyway). Unless "actual ingame footage" is used as a label on the piece then it's not technically binding, and even then the argument could be made that cutscenes are technically "in-game".
