Sony sued over Killzone: Shadow Fall's graphics

[Polonium]

Of course it should have been thrown out - taxpayers money funding court cases that have no real meaning on life. I mean, nobody died or got injured did they? It's a game.

[chrisj1968]

on one hand yeah it is false advertising. on the other though, who the hell even cares? it's not that great of a game anyway (then again most "realistic" style shooters are stale anymore)

 

Grin, who developed the GRAW and GRAW2 games for Ubisoft, couldn't do true work on getting jaggies out of edges on say buildings as an example. So they used a edgesmooth trick to achieve a pseudo to getting rid of jaggies by blurring distant edges. kinda wierd but meh.. no biggie.

[spenser.d]

edit - nvm 

[compl3x]

Of course it should have been thrown out - taxpayers money funding court cases that have no real meaning on life. I mean, nobody died or got injured did they? It's a game.

 

 

People don't need to be injured or die for a case to be legitimate.\

 

Someone stole your car? Don't waste the system's time, it's not like you got injured or died.

[Polonium]

Insurance covers a stolen car. Silly point to make.

[compl3x]

Insurance covers a stolen car. Silly point to make.

 

 

Don't try to obtain a police report, usually necessary for an insurance claim. That is a waste of the system's time, by your silly reasoning.

[Polonium]

We are discussing taking a game developer to court over a game. Not a stolen car, that usually wouldn't go to court as insurance and police reports suffice.

Again, Silly comparison.

[GotBored]

We are discussing taking a game developer to court over a game. Not a stolen car, that usually wouldn't go to court as insurance and police reports suffice.

Again, Silly comparison.

 

I agree the comparison between stealing a car and false advertisement is quite silly.

 

It's like when the movie industry tries to compare pirating a mp3 with stealing a car, just isn't in the same category.

 

But some time ago Red Bull settled a lawsuit against them for 'false advertising' for 13 million dollars because of the 'Red Bull gives you wings' campaign. I'm guessing the developers of Shadowfall will do the same thing because the cost of bad press is worth more than the settlement in most cases.

[compl3x]

You shouldn't have suggested that because there was no physical harm done to anyone that the case was unimportant. Do you seriously think only cases which involve physical harm are worth the court's time? I surely hope not.

 

Fraud, false advertising, misleading consumers and so on are all illegal and consumers have every right to have their case heard if they feel a company has engaged in any one of those behaviours. 

 

Game devs/publishers seem to have a bit of a habit lately of demoing titles in a way which is considerably different to the final product. 

I agree the comparison between stealing a car and false advertisement is quite silly.

 

 

I was simply pointing out that car theft is also a crime which doesn't result in physical harm but no one would argue that it deserve no attention from the legal system because no one got hurt. Someone being hurt has nothing to do with whether or not a case is valid.

 

I really shouldn't have to explain this stuff.

[spenser.d]

I agree the comparison between stealing a car and false advertisement is quite silly.

It's like when the movie industry tries to compare pirating a mp3 with stealing a car, just isn't in the same category.

But some time ago Red Bull settled a lawsuit against them for 'false advertising' for 13 million dollars because of the 'Red Bull gives you wings' campaign. I'm guessing the developers of Shadowfall will do the same thing because the cost of bad press is worth more than the settlement in most cases.

The red bull suit didn't have anything to do with the wings campaign. That was just the media doing what they do. The actual suit was against red bulls claims that their energy drink gives you more of a boost than a cup of coffee and was actually found to be not true.

Settling basically worked out in their favor because they got to give away a bunch of red bull, which is a thing they do anyway in a lot of cities.

[GotBored]

The red bull suit didn't have anything to do with the wings campaign. That was just the media doing what they do. The actual suit was against red bulls claims that their energy drink gives you more of a boost than a cup of coffee and was actually found to be not true.

Settling basically worked out in their favor because they got to give away a bunch of red bull, which is a thing they do anyway in a lot of cities.

 

The wings campaign was the campaign they were sued for, its the campaign that claimed their energy drink gives you more of a boost than other beverages.

The media tried to make it out as though Red Bull got sued for the 'Red Bull gives you wings'  slogan which is incorrect, it was that campaign but not for the slogan.

 

Not sure how losing 13 million dollars worked out for them, companies don't do giveaways to lose money. Red Bull does the giveaways with good looking red bull girls for relatively cheap advertising and to portray a certain image of the product and people who drink the product. Sending a $10 check to someone's house doesn't give this benefit.

[spenser.d]

The wings campaign was the campaign they were sued for, its the campaign that claimed their energy drink gives you more of a boost than other beverages.

The media tried to make it out as though Red Bull got sued for the 'Red Bull gives you wings'  slogan which is incorrect, it was that campaign but not for the slogan.

 

Not sure how losing 13 million dollars worked out for them, companies don't do giveaways to lose money. Red Bull does the giveaways with good looking red bull girls for relatively cheap advertising and to portray a certain image of the product and people who drink the product. Sending a $10 check to someone's house doesn't give this benefit.

 

If you read the actual complaint filed with the court, it doesn't specify any sort of particular campaign. Red Bull could've made those statements outside their campaign and still have been sued for them. But you're arguing over semantics now and I'm not sure why so I'll leave it at that.

[GotBored]

If you read the actual complaint filed with the court, it doesn't specify any sort of particular campaign. Red Bull could've made those statements outside their campaign and still have been sued for them. But you're arguing over semantics now and I'm not sure why so I'll leave it at that.

 

You do realize I was just replying to an argument you started against my post right?

 

The actual complaint:

 

Red Bull's ad campaign promised that the drink will increase performance, concentration and reaction speed, allowing the company to charge and get a substantial premium for their products over readily available and much lower priced sources of caffeine that provide the same results

 

The Red Bull lawsuit offered a $10 refund for anyone that purchased Red Bull in the last 12 years. (So since 2002)

 

Red Bull gives you wings ad campaign has been running since 2002.

 

 

 

 

Red Bull could've made those statements outside their campaign and still have been sued for them.

 

Red Bull could've also bought a nuke and dropped it on Las Vegas, but could've means nothing. The complaint specifically targeted the ad campaign not what they did outside of it.