Editorials, Featured, Gaming General, Main Featured, Stories, Sub Featured

Misleading Marketing of Aliens: Colonial Marines Worthy of a Lawsuit

Gearbox’s Aliens: Colonial Marines released this past Tuesday to less than stellar reviews. In the time since then, the gaming press has scrambled to make some sense of what exactly happened during...

Gearbox’s Aliens: Colonial Marines released this past Tuesday to less than stellar reviews.

In the time since then, the gaming press has scrambled to make some sense of what exactly happened during the development of the game, and the more that’s revealed, the worse it looks for Sega and Gearbox.

In the pre-release hype for the game, Gearbox head Randy Pitchford was front and center, notably in this “hands-on” demo released last year. However, now that the game has actually come out, it appears that Gearbox had very little, if any, development input on the game, instead outsourcing it to a handful of other developers, including TimeGate studios. Of course, this claim is in dispute and, depending on who you believe, Gearbox developed somewhere between 25% to 80% of the game. Now, it’s not unusual for certain parts of a game to be developed by different studios. Games are far too big these days for one team to complete all of the work necessary to finish a game. However, there’s a disclosure that happens in those situations that didn’t happen here, and it doesn’t seem to impact those games the way it impacted this one.

None of the semantics really matter, however. What matters is that gamers were misled during the marketing of Aliens: Colonial Marines, up to and including art assets given to press outlets for the purposes of review. In his review of the game for Polygon, Reviews Editor Arthur Gies stated that “…[A]s Reviews Editor, I could not in good conscience use assets distributed by Sega and Gearbox over the press cycle for Aliens: Colonial Marines. They bear little resemblance to the maxed-out PC version I played for this review.”

If you think that sounds suspiciously like “False Advertising,” you and I are on the same page.

The Lanham Act of 1946 is an all-encompassing piece of legislation that covers items like copyright infringement, trademarking, and others. It also covers False Advertising under Section 43(a), per this piece from Courtland Reichman and M. Melissa Cannady, published in the Spring 2002 issue of the Franchise Law Journal.

Reichman and Cannady state that most courts consider the elements which comprise a false advertising claim are as follows:

1) the defendant made a false or misleading statement of fact in a commercial advertisement about a product;

2) the statement either deceived or had the capacity to deceive a substantial segment of potential consumers;

3) the deception is material, in that it is likely to influence the consumer’s purchasing decision;

4) the product is in interstate commerce; and

5) the plaintiff has been or is likely to be injured as a result of this statement.

If we look at the case gamers would have against Sega and Gearbox, it seems as though there’s no doubt that Aliens: Colonial Marines was advertised falsely.

1) The defendant made a false or misleading statement of fact in a commercial advertisement about a product

Firstly, the primary misleading statement of fact pertains to the development of the game. Gearbox is a respected name in the gaming community, with well-received titles such as Borderlands and Brothers in Arms in its coffer. The one negative item on its resume is 2011′s Duke Nukem Forever, a game which was basically content-complete by the time Gearbox received the rights to it from previous developer 3D Realms. Having Pitchford lead the walkthroughs is particularly misleading, as his name carries an inherent assurance of quality that gamers look for when making purchasing decisions.

Secondly, the walkthrough referenced contained many elements not present in the actual game, as detailed by Destructoid’s Jim Sterling here. According to him and many other journalists who have reviewed the hands-on footage after actually completing the game, many of the elements present in that demonstration (the advanced AI, combat scenarios and lighting in particular) are either drastically different in the final version of the game or downright missing. Sterling goes into great detail in calling out which elements are misleading.

2) The statement either deceived or had the capacity to deceive a substantial segment of potential consumers

The Randy Pitchford-narrated walkthrough video has received over 300,000 views on YouTube.com, while his comments and the game’s screenshots have surely been seen by millions of potential customers. Pitchford has a large media platform, and he has access directly to 215,000 people via his social platform on Twitter.

3) The deception is material, in that it is likely to influence the customer’s purchasing decision

This is obvious on its face, but the insidiousness of Sega and Gearbox’s misleading marketing is truly on display in some quotes made by Pitchford, as detailed here by IGN. In the piece, Pitchford claims that Gearbox “got the jump on the next generation” by “providing it (the next generation) in this one (with Aliens: Colonial Marines).” He goes to great lengths to label the game’s rendering engine as something revolutionary. Meanwhile, the accompanying screenshots look nothing like the game buyers actually got their hands on on February the 12th. Pitchford’s reputation in the industry gave these statements a credence they may not have otherwise received, and a great deal of the excitement for Aliens: Colonial Marines was based on the videos provided by Sega and Gearbox, as well as Pitchford’s statements. Had they been forthcoming about the actual gameplay scenarios present in the final version of Aliens, it’s possible the game wouldn’t have sold what it ultimately did (sales numbers are not available at press time).

4) The product is in interstate commerce

This is largely related to the Commerce Clause which gives Constitutional authority to Congress to regulate commerce done across state lines. Obviously, Aliens: Colonial Marines is a product sold across state lines, with Sega’s nationwide distribution network.

5) The plaintiff has been or is likely to be injured as a result of this statement

This of course is referencing the legal definition of injury, which can be both physical as well as financial. In today’s gaming landscape, it’s impossible to receive a full refund for a product that one is unhappy with, and the review embargo (which dictates when reviews can come out) for Aliens came hours after the game was officially released for sale. Considering that a large portion of game’s sales come via preorder or in the first day or so of release, it’s arguable that all unhappy consumers who did not have the opportunity to read a review before being charged for their Aliens: Colonial Marines purchase were injured by the misleading actions of Sega and Gearbox. This could be a total injury in the tens of millions of dollars.

Even if gamers don’t band together and sue Sega and Gearbox, the release of Aliens: Colonial Marines should destroy Gearbox and Pitchford’s reputations in the marketplace and make gamers wary whenever they see either of those names associated with a game.

Other Stories From Around The Net

  • http://twitter.com/ShipmanEditor Michal Shipman

    I was already planning on writing a formal letter to SEGA asking for a refund because of false advertisement.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jimmy.struthers.963 Jimmy Struthers

    This is a fantastic article which demonstrates that there is indeed a cause for consumers to seek legal action here. I hope this article is shared with all major gaming websites, that way the news can be spread and everyone who feels cheated by this situation can band together and proceed forward out of principle to help make things right. It’s unfortunate that it may require the assistance of the courts, but this is the only way we can help keep the industry honest and defend our rights as consumers.

  • Chris

    This game ruined my valentines. Here’s my review

  • Ktulu_Jax

    I’d like to remind people who are screaming about false advertising that TONS of games cut content before release. As I said before, I have no interest in ACM now
    that I know it’s a c-tier shooter (probably worth about $15 on steam)
    and am not defending the QUALITY of this shit game, but am going to try
    and defend these accusations.

    First off we have DOOM 3(one of my all time favorite alpha/beta trailers):

    Anyone who played the game knows NONE of this made it in the final.
    Enemies disappear, the pinky does all sorts of stuff never featured in
    the game, and that Hellknight fatality is never featured either.

    Next up we have ol’ HL2 and valve’s beta:

    Not only is the introduction level never in the game, but numerous
    other bits were clipped together… and let’s not forget the ol’ Hydra.
    While I think we all agree the game was still 10/10 GOTYAY, this is
    clearly “false advertising”. Right? Right?

    But, yeah, I concede. Valve announced (I believe) that the Hydra was
    taken out, and I do admit that trailer was released years in advance of
    the actual shipping.

    So let’s take a look at actual false advertising (That no one sued over..)
    So let’s consider Metal Gear Solid 2 (my all time favorite game :P)

    I was going to try and find the footage in-game where they
    specifically call attention to the fact that Kojima and co. purposely
    deceived us into thinking Snake was going to be playable the entire way
    (Decade+ spoiler alert: he isn’t)

    Kojima went so far as to substitue Snakes model in for Raiden. This
    is literally false advertising. FUCKING AWESOME FALSE ADVERTISING! All
    hail based Kojima!! :D

    Other examples? Spore. Killzone 2. heck, even Uncharted 3 is guilty of it.

    So, back to ACM. I watched the trailer linked a few times and here’s
    my thoughts: It’s not false advertising., it’s shitty and sloppy editing
    most likely done so the game could run on console(trash). Nothing that
    Randy says is untrue, either. The Aliens still jump from walls, the
    turret-gun still works (though there’s a lack of enemies around), you
    can still see the shitty outside scenery of LV-426, and the core
    gameplay NEVER changed.

    Once more, this isn’t false advertisement, it’s shitty game design and a botched crunch time.

    BUt yeah, game looks like shit LOL @ people who actually bought Day 1
    without waiting. Shit, I would think by this time EVERY fan of the
    Franchise knows to wait and see if it’s shit or gold.

    • http://www.facebook.com/jimmy.struthers.963 Jimmy Struthers

      I don’t think you realize the extent of what’s going on here. The demo which you are referring to was said by Randy Pitchford, along with other GB employees, to be a REAL demo from the game. Not only that, but a trailer was released with the following wording – “100 percent in-game footage.”

      You see, with that being said, I strongly agree these legal claims have strong merit and should definitely be looked into further. Please don’t fall into the mistake of thinking that this is video game business as usual. Sure, a lot of times games undergo changes, but in this case, the product was marketed and presented in a certain form that the fans did not receive. For example, they went to buy a vanilla ice cream cone, but received a vanilla ice scream cone instead. When people bought the item, thinking it was a vanilla cone, and instead get a chocolate one, that is a bait and switch, my friend. This is not common puffery, this was a gross failure of truth in advertising, especially when you consider that the game is STILL being marketed as a Gearbox title on its casing, where in fact, there were many other developers responsible for its making, which could effect gamers purchasing decision because for all they know, when the item is on the shelf, all they see is “a game from the critically acclaimed developers of Borderlands.” If a lawsuit is presented, it should also include the need to have all copies of the game recalled so that way the description could be changed and ALL developers are on the box, instead of misleading people to think they are paying top dollar for a title that is on par with the quality of Borderlands. All the things I’m speaking of relate to fraudulent inducement and can help those people who unfortunately opened their copies and can no longer get refunds. Instead of trying to defend the company who has done gamers wrong, we should stand up together and help see that this type of unethical behavior and bad business practices will no longer be tolerated.

      • Ktulu_Jax

        Hey man, really liked your level headed response. So, in response to your first paragraph: So why didn’t everyone and there brother flip the frack out and start yelling lawsuits at Guerrilla Games for their bait-and-switch tactics, corporate coverups, and outright lying over the Killzone 2 footage?

        But I digress, the A:CM demo that everyone is using as a comparison, WAS a real demo for the game, and it did have “100 percent in game footage”. They cut it. It was there at the time the demo was shown, and now it is not. From the way you put it, if a dev makes a trailer for a game everything HAS to be there when the game ships. Speaking of…

        http://cs303205.userapi.com/v303205574/4396/OxEdpdlZe64.jpg

    • Guest

      You don’t quite understand what issue as a whole is, do you? Go back to sleep please.

      Just for reference sake, the HL2 content change was easily justified–> mainly due to the original leak. Those vids you are referring too were heavily scripted (way beyond what I’ve seen in most games) and as a result of the changes, the game ended up being much more true to itself, i.e. the changes were pretty much for the better, as in people got a BETTER game than those few vids showed. They also released media representative of the FINAL product, that indeed did just that. If you’d played the leaked version, as I did, you’d understand what I mean.

      • http://www.facebook.com/jimmy.struthers.963 Jimmy Struthers

        Thank you for your post, Shaun. I think that Ktulu_Jax is only looking at this situation from the surface and is not looking at what’s really going on here. As been discussed, this is a situation where one product was advertised and the customers are sold another. Sure, the product sorta looks the same, but in the end, the quality that was represented in the demo with “100% in-game footage” was not sold to consumers.

        Jax didn’t like the ice cream analogy, so I will be more than glad to use another. What happened with A:CM is equivalent to going to a car dealership and seeing a really nice car on the lot. It looks great and has all the extra features to boot, all for a given price. So, based on what you’ve seen, you fill out the paperwork and pay full price for the car. The only problem is that after the paperwork is done, the car is presented to you, but this time, it’s not that same car at all. Sure, it’s the same model, but this is a gimped out unit that is missing all the extra features that convinced you to buy it in the first place. After all, the car is from a reputable brand and that’s what you wanted – a loaded vehicle. How is that NOT a problem? To make matters worse, aside from the car not having all the features you thought you had paid for, you find out that the car is not really from the manufacturer at all. Later, after you purchase the vehicle, you come to find out that the vehicle was not made by the reputable brand at all, it just has the logo on the car, but the truth is that the majority of the vehicle was outsourced to a chinese production house that does not have the same reputation that the original brand did. So in the end, you have a gimped out car and a car that is not even fully made in the USA?! Shouldn’t these have been things that were disclosed BEFORE you completed your purchase, as they very well could make all the difference in making the purchasing decision. Maybe some consumers are fine with the downgrade, but even if so, perhaps offer the deal at a lower cost?

        In the case of A:CM, that’s not what happened. The inferior version of the product is being sold at full price where many purchased it in good faith based on comments from the developers that this was THEIR game and that the demo was real, in-game footage. This is a bait and switch. Please don’t piss on me and tell me it’s raining. It is what it is and the consumers have rights that need to be defended here. This is a special case where something needs to be done – if people don’t stand up, then the industry as a whole will think it’s okay for developers to get away with this type of unethical, illegal business practice. It needs to stop here and it needs to stop now.

    • Shaun

      You don’t quite understand what issue as a whole is, do you? Go back to sleep please. Those games you list, never really turned out to be the turd this game ended up being. As much as you deny it, you are unavoidably condoning this action. In all those cases you have listed, the games turned out to be phenomenal and people ignored the changes because the games lived up to the hype and didn’t feel ROBBED of $50-60. On top of that, legitimate content was shown before the release of each game. reducing the shock those games had on players.

      Just for reference sake, the HL2 content change was easily justified–> mainly due to the original leak. Those vids you are referring too were also far too heavily scripted (way beyond what I’ve seen in most games) and as a result of the changes, the game ended up being much more true to itself, i.e. the changes were pretty much for the better, as in people got a BETTER game than those few vids showed. If you’d played the leaked version, as I did, you’d understand what I mean.

      They also released media representative of the FINAL product.

  • http://www.facebook.com/nav.hans.524 Nav Hans

    I filed a complaint with the FBI, Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3).

    I don’t like deceived and taken for my money. That is my government’s job.