177 réponses à ce sujet

[AydinPaladin]

Mike Shepard wrote...

OK @ the guy who quoted me...I get it. People are mad about the game. It's about high expectations and the game didn't meet them. Guess what, that's your problem not the FTC's. Based on that, I had high expectations for the Boston Red Sox in 2011. And in September 2011 they fell apart. They went down slowly and steadily. it was like watching the freaking hindenberg. KABOOM! followed by a gentle fall. Based on them failing to deliver on what they advertised--that they wouldn't stop until they "restored order," I could sue them for the return of my season ticket money. Except it doesn't work like that. No game is going to live up to everything you expect from it. It's like if you haven't had apple pie in a realllllyyy long time and then you have some, and it's not as good as you remembered it, you get sad. But the apple pie is still great. What I'm saying is, this guy was within his rights to file a complaint with the FTC, sure. But it's still insane. Because the Red Sox would have a lot of lawsuits on their hands if you could sue over dissapointment...

The Red Sox did not promise consumers in copy or advertisement/marketing that certain things would be 100% gaurenteed out of the games you paid money to see. Even if they said "We guarentee we will be the best team in the world" it would be considered irrelevent puffery that any reasonable person could determine was hyperbole.

By saying "We are making a game that has these specific things" BioWare made a contractual obligation to their market. By not providing those things, they have commited false advertising/major puffery. The things promised were specific and were realistic, not hyperbole. If they were supposed to be so, obviously, the average user could not determine such, making it definitively illegal

[Teacher50]

Mike Shepard wrote...

OK @ the guy who quoted me...I get it. People are mad about the game. It's about high expectations and the game didn't meet them. Guess what, that's your problem not the FTC's. Based on that, I had high expectations for the Boston Red Sox in 2011. And in September 2011 they fell apart. They went down slowly and steadily. it was like watching the freaking hindenberg. KABOOM! followed by a gentle fall. Based on them failing to deliver on what they advertised--that they wouldn't stop until they "restored order," I could sue them for the return of my season ticket money. Except it doesn't work like that. No game is going to live up to everything you expect from it. It's like if you haven't had apple pie in a realllllyyy long time and then you have some, and it's not as good as you remembered it, you get sad. But the apple pie is still great. What I'm saying is, this guy was within his rights to file a complaint with the FTC, sure. But it's still insane. Because the Red Sox would have a lot of lawsuits on their hands if you could sue over dissapointment...Eighty-Six years worth, in fact, because from 1918 to 2004 they were always either awful or "so close yet so far". I am not saying, "get over it! Rawr!" just...expectations...

OK... but don't you want more? Really satisfied? Can't you ask for or demand satisfaction? Did you get what you thought you would or should expect? Where you dissalutioned by your expectations? Or... what.

It's all a process of assesment... think about it.

[Ravenmyste]

Yttrian wrote...

GME_ThorianCreeper wrote...

Here's the thing though...


it's a video game.

It's a product that was advertised with qualities different than it actually has.

i.e. 16 different tailored endings with vast connections to previous games, choices and the consequences thereof, that answers the majority of player questions and gives closure to most aspects of the Mass Effect universe.

link to  offical bioware website source that states this? please, i will wait i have yet to see any 16 endings at all on all websites that states how many there are actually?

and even destructoid is laughing at the guy that filed this thing lol

they will state the same thing i just said care to provide any link or advertizement to 16 different endings?

no? sorry you are just stupid

[Ravenmyste]

AydinPaladin wrote...

Mike Shepard wrote...

OK @ the guy who quoted me...I get it. People are mad about the game. It's about high expectations and the game didn't meet them. Guess what, that's your problem not the FTC's. Based on that, I had high expectations for the Boston Red Sox in 2011. And in September 2011 they fell apart. They went down slowly and steadily. it was like watching the freaking hindenberg. KABOOM! followed by a gentle fall. Based on them failing to deliver on what they advertised--that they wouldn't stop until they "restored order," I could sue them for the return of my season ticket money. Except it doesn't work like that. No game is going to live up to everything you expect from it. It's like if you haven't had apple pie in a realllllyyy long time and then you have some, and it's not as good as you remembered it, you get sad. But the apple pie is still great. What I'm saying is, this guy was within his rights to file a complaint with the FTC, sure. But it's still insane. Because the Red Sox would have a lot of lawsuits on their hands if you could sue over dissapointment...

The Red Sox did not promise consumers in copy or advertisement/marketing that certain things would be 100% gaurenteed out of the games you paid money to see. Even if they said "We guarentee we will be the best team in the world" it would be considered irrelevent puffery that any reasonable person could determine was hyperbole.

By saying "We are making a game that has these specific things" BioWare made a contractual obligation to their market. By not providing those things, they have commited false advertising/major puffery. The things promised were specific and were realistic, not hyperbole. If they were supposed to be so, obviously, the average user could not determine such, making it definitively illegal

actually no they didnt try it again

[MikoDoll]

Why are you assuming that this is the only questionable issue in false advertising. The person who filed cited that they had numerous reasons so trying to pin it on one in particular is faulty.

[Teacher50]

Ravenmyste wrote...

Yttrian wrote...

GME_ThorianCreeper wrote...

Here's the thing though...


it's a video game.

It's a product that was advertised with qualities different than it actually has.

i.e. 16 different tailored endings with vast connections to previous games, choices and the consequences thereof, that answers the majority of player questions and gives closure to most aspects of the Mass Effect universe.

link to  offical bioware website source that states this? please, i will wait i have yet to see any 16 endings at all on all websites that states how many there are actually?

and even destructoid is laughing at the guy that filed this thing lol

they will state the same thing i just said care to provide any link or advertizement to 16 different endings?

no? sorry you are just stupid

Hey... That's a personal attack, Shame on you.

[MageCeridan]

What's wrong with that guy anyway?

Filling an FTC complaint because he did not like the ending of a videogame?

It's like filing an FTC complaint over Jar Jar Binks and midiclorians(sp?)... or about that "Han shot first" contravercy in Star wars...

[Ravenmyste]

Teacher50 wrote...

Ravenmyste wrote...

Yttrian wrote...

GME_ThorianCreeper wrote...

Here's the thing though...


it's a video game.

It's a product that was advertised with qualities different than it actually has.

i.e. 16 different tailored endings with vast connections to previous games, choices and the consequences thereof, that answers the majority of player questions and gives closure to most aspects of the Mass Effect universe.

link to  offical bioware website source that states this? please, i will wait i have yet to see any 16 endings at all on all websites that states how many there are actually?

and even destructoid is laughing at the guy that filed this thing lol

they will state the same thing i just said care to provide any link or advertizement to 16 different endings?

no? sorry you are just stupid

Hey... That's a personal attack, Shame on you.

no its not and wasn't at you,its what the commision will say to the guy that Filed the complaint, you know as well as i do they will  make some legal  sounding that will confuse the person  so that he wont understand...

 when he gets to someone that can understand what they actually saying,  the people will laugh at him and say in layman's terms they called you stupid for filing a false complaint on saying there was a 16 ending when they never even shown that on ANY documentations on saying there is 16 endings, i there is one way to get actual a suit going would be against prima for their guide that states you need Ng+fish for a secret ending

Modifié par Ravenmyste, 19 mars 2012 - 03:16 .

[AydinPaladin]

Ravenmyste wrote...

AydinPaladin wrote...

Mike Shepard wrote...

OK @ the guy who quoted me...I get it. People are mad about the game. It's about high expectations and the game didn't meet them. Guess what, that's your problem not the FTC's. Based on that, I had high expectations for the Boston Red Sox in 2011. And in September 2011 they fell apart. They went down slowly and steadily. it was like watching the freaking hindenberg. KABOOM! followed by a gentle fall. Based on them failing to deliver on what they advertised--that they wouldn't stop until they "restored order," I could sue them for the return of my season ticket money. Except it doesn't work like that. No game is going to live up to everything you expect from it. It's like if you haven't had apple pie in a realllllyyy long time and then you have some, and it's not as good as you remembered it, you get sad. But the apple pie is still great. What I'm saying is, this guy was within his rights to file a complaint with the FTC, sure. But it's still insane. Because the Red Sox would have a lot of lawsuits on their hands if you could sue over dissapointment...

The Red Sox did not promise consumers in copy or advertisement/marketing that certain things would be 100% gaurenteed out of the games you paid money to see. Even if they said "We guarentee we will be the best team in the world" it would be considered irrelevent puffery that any reasonable person could determine was hyperbole.

By saying "We are making a game that has these specific things" BioWare made a contractual obligation to their market. By not providing those things, they have commited false advertising/major puffery. The things promised were specific and were realistic, not hyperbole. If they were supposed to be so, obviously, the average user could not determine such, making it definitively illegal

actually no they didnt try it again

You are saying that BioWare promised nothing to consumers in their advertising/PR/marketing plans?
Please provide evidence that shows were BioWare did not say 

"experience the begining, middle, and end of an emotional story unlike any other,
where the decisions you make completely shape your experience and outcome."

Like it does, you know, here.. on the front page of the website. 
http://masseffect.com/about/story/ 

Various advertising campaigns released before release promised that the endings would be unqiue and would be affected in a way that
the decisions you make completely shape your experience and outcome. This was not the case. This was/is false advertising. 

[Teacher50]

MageCeridan wrote...

What's wrong with that guy anyway?

Filling an FTC complaint because he did not like the ending of a videogame?

It's like filing an FTC complaint over Jar Jar Binks and midiclorians(sp?)... or about that "Han shot first" contravercy in Star wars...

But isn't that his right... his decission? Just like yours...

[Teacher50]

AydinPaladin wrote...

Ravenmyste wrote...

AydinPaladin wrote...

Mike Shepard wrote...

OK @ the guy who quoted me...I get it. People are mad about the game. It's about high expectations and the game didn't meet them. Guess what, that's your problem not the FTC's. Based on that, I had high expectations for the Boston Red Sox in 2011. And in September 2011 they fell apart. They went down slowly and steadily. it was like watching the freaking hindenberg. KABOOM! followed by a gentle fall. Based on them failing to deliver on what they advertised--that they wouldn't stop until they "restored order," I could sue them for the return of my season ticket money. Except it doesn't work like that. No game is going to live up to everything you expect from it. It's like if you haven't had apple pie in a realllllyyy long time and then you have some, and it's not as good as you remembered it, you get sad. But the apple pie is still great. What I'm saying is, this guy was within his rights to file a complaint with the FTC, sure. But it's still insane. Because the Red Sox would have a lot of lawsuits on their hands if you could sue over dissapointment...

The Red Sox did not promise consumers in copy or advertisement/marketing that certain things would be 100% gaurenteed out of the games you paid money to see. Even if they said "We guarentee we will be the best team in the world" it would be considered irrelevent puffery that any reasonable person could determine was hyperbole.

By saying "We are making a game that has these specific things" BioWare made a contractual obligation to their market. By not providing those things, they have commited false advertising/major puffery. The things promised were specific and were realistic, not hyperbole. If they were supposed to be so, obviously, the average user could not determine such, making it definitively illegal

actually no they didnt try it again

You are saying that BioWare promised nothing to consumers in their advertising/PR/marketing plans?
Please provide evidence that shows were BioWare did not say 

"experience the begining, middle, and end of an emotional story unlike any other,
where the decisions you make completely shape your experience and outcome."

Like it does, you know, here.. on the front page of the website. 
http://masseffect.com/about/story/ 

Various advertising campaigns released before release promised that the endings would be unqiue and would be affected in a way that
the decisions you make completely shape your experience and outcome. This was not the case. This was/is false advertising. 

^ This is the issue...

[Sidney]

[quote]Teacher50 wrote...

Various advertising campaigns released before release promised that the endings would be unqiue and would be affected in a way that
the decisions you make completely shape your experience and outcome. This was not the case. This was/is false advertising. 

[/quote]

^ This is the issue...

[/quote]

No, it isn't. The end state of your game does reflect your actions. There is a choice at the end of the game. You might not like it, they might be awful but they gave me at least 3 choices I could sort out from that crap. You've also solved a host of other issues along the way that are based on your decisions.

Using this stupid way of thinking everytime a movie promises me a thrill a minute ride or a laught outloud experience I should sue them.

The FTC complaint is in its own way every bit as awful as the endings it wishes to fight.

[Lux]

Teacher50 wrote...

Merkar wrote...

BioWare did come out with false advertisement prior to game release. They should be held accountable by consumers but not in this way. It is at most another way to get attention to the issue and is another reason why BioWare should man up instead of letting things burn uncontrollably. Empty statements are obviously not enough this time.

BioWare crossed a line with the endings and some consumers are taking their example to the letter.

Gee... I must have missed somthing in my law classes. What people do within the system that is in place and goes along with certain rights as a citizen of this great country is completely within their rights. Posting it here is just there way of saying, hey this is what I did and you should consider it.

Just saying, think about it before you say something that may actually go against your core beliefs.

This is certainly within the rights of a consumer to do so and another way to pressure results. I just wouldn't go that far. I think the message was already getting across and at the end of the day I still want to see BioWare up and running to make great games and learning from their mistakes. I still want to be able to purchase ME3 and finish the trilogy in a more coherent way.

But BioWare created this mess and this is yet another reaction. I just hope they don't get burned to the ground and something positive comes out from all of this.

[Ravenmyste]

AydinPaladin wrote...

Ravenmyste wrote...

AydinPaladin wrote...

Mike Shepard wrote...

OK @ the guy who quoted me...I get it. People are mad about the game. It's about high expectations and the game didn't meet them. Guess what, that's your problem not the FTC's. Based on that, I had high expectations for the Boston Red Sox in 2011. And in September 2011 they fell apart. They went down slowly and steadily. it was like watching the freaking hindenberg. KABOOM! followed by a gentle fall. Based on them failing to deliver on what they advertised--that they wouldn't stop until they "restored order," I could sue them for the return of my season ticket money. Except it doesn't work like that. No game is going to live up to everything you expect from it. It's like if you haven't had apple pie in a realllllyyy long time and then you have some, and it's not as good as you remembered it, you get sad. But the apple pie is still great. What I'm saying is, this guy was within his rights to file a complaint with the FTC, sure. But it's still insane. Because the Red Sox would have a lot of lawsuits on their hands if you could sue over dissapointment...

The Red Sox did not promise consumers in copy or advertisement/marketing that certain things would be 100% gaurenteed out of the games you paid money to see. Even if they said "We guarentee we will be the best team in the world" it would be considered irrelevent puffery that any reasonable person could determine was hyperbole.

By saying "We are making a game that has these specific things" BioWare made a contractual obligation to their market. By not providing those things, they have commited false advertising/major puffery. The things promised were specific and were realistic, not hyperbole. If they were supposed to be so, obviously, the average user could not determine such, making it definitively illegal

actually no they didn't try it again

You are saying that BioWare promised nothing to consumers in their advertising/PR/marketing plans?
Please provide evidence that shows were BioWare did not say 

"experience the begining, middle, and end of an emotional story unlike any other,
where the decisions you make completely shape your experience and outcome."

Like it does, you know, here.. on the front page of the website. 
http://masseffect.com/about/story/ 

Various advertising campaigns released before release promised that the endings would be unqiue and would be affected in a way that
 This was not the case."the decisions you make completely shape your experience and outcome".  This was/is false advertising. 

 and they did deliver it to you thought out all 2 games when you import it will show your choices and  set up  the game based on you experiences thru 1 and 2 and the final outcome does not fall into this they delivered what the said they would do you saw what happened thru out the game in the choices you made up till the crucible choice you have 3 choices and thats is what you have to do the child EVEN states what will happen to you in all 3 choices...

so again no they didnt promise any unique endings so my statement about saying no they didnt try again  is correct no court will touch  the case after  FTC Rules on it sorry but they didnt advertise anything like that which you just stated they did in fact  Give you  "the decisions you make completely shape your experience and outcome" if you really want top test  me try a game WITHOUT any importing then you will see the massive differences in the game  AND HOW IT EFFECTS the out come. that is what they mean nopt the finaly out come on ht e 3 choices you have to decide

Modifié par Ravenmyste, 19 mars 2012 - 03:34 .

[AydinPaladin]

I'm sorry, no.

>everytime a movie promises me a thrill a minute ride or a laught outloud experience I should sue them.  

This is considered  unreasonable puffery. Any reasonable person can tell this is hyperbole.

>the decisions you make completely shape your experience and outcome.  
This and the other advertising campaigns that say your decisions affect the ending are false. The ending is not really changed at all by your final "choice". This promise and the other ones made by BioWare were logical expectations. Any reasonable person could NOT tell this from hyperbole given the nature of the previous games. This is what makes their advertisig potentially illegal.

I am telling you this as a member of PRSSA and a Marketing coordinator of a major franchise. 

Modifié par AydinPaladin, 19 mars 2012 - 03:24 .

[shurikenmanta]

The thing is, in a way your experiences and actions did shape the outcome. Go through with minimum EMS and see what happens to you.

I agree that it was misleading, but in the end, this is the defense they will use, it will work and it's valid, albeit a cop-out.

[DemGeth]

AydinPaladin wrote...

I'm sorry, no.

>everytime a movie promises me a thrill a minute ride or a laught outloud experience I should sue them.  

This is considered  unreasonable puffery. Any reasonable person can tell this is hyperbole.

>the decisions you make completely shape your experience and outcome.  
This and the other advertising campaigns that say your decisions affect the ending are false. The ending is not really changed at all by your final "choice". This promise and the other ones made by BioWare were logical expectations. Any reasonable person could NOT tell this from hyperbole given the nature of the previous games. This is what makes their advertisig potentially illegal.

I am telling you this as a member of PRSSA and a Marketing coordinator of a major franchise. 

Your post is completly wrong in every regard.  There's no possibillity of dev. interviews being viewed as false advertiisment.  He could of said Mirranda will pop out in 3-D and polish your.....remote and it'd be fine.  

[AydinPaladin]

DemGeth wrote...

AydinPaladin wrote...

I'm sorry, no.

>everytime a movie promises me a thrill a minute ride or a laught outloud experience I should sue them.  

This is considered  unreasonable puffery. Any reasonable person can tell this is hyperbole.

>the decisions you make completely shape your experience and outcome.  
This and the other advertising campaigns that say your decisions affect the ending are false. The ending is not really changed at all by your final "choice". This promise and the other ones made by BioWare were logical expectations. Any reasonable person could NOT tell this from hyperbole given the nature of the previous games. This is what makes their advertisig potentially illegal.

I am telling you this as a member of PRSSA and a Marketing coordinator of a major franchise. 

Your post is completly wrong in every regard.  There's no possibillity of dev. interviews being viewed as false advertiisment.  He could of said Mirranda will pop out in 3-D and polish your.....remote and it'd be fine.  

I said absolutely nothing about dev interviews.
I am only talking about advertising campaigns PR/Marketing plans.
I don't even know where you got that from.

The quote is from the front page of the Mass Effect 3 website. This is considered advertising. 

[DemGeth]

AydinPaladin wrote...

DemGeth wrote...

AydinPaladin wrote...

I'm sorry, no.

>everytime a movie promises me a thrill a minute ride or a laught outloud experience I should sue them.  

This is considered  unreasonable puffery. Any reasonable person can tell this is hyperbole.

>the decisions you make completely shape your experience and outcome.  
This and the other advertising campaigns that say your decisions affect the ending are false. The ending is not really changed at all by your final "choice". This promise and the other ones made by BioWare were logical expectations. Any reasonable person could NOT tell this from hyperbole given the nature of the previous games. This is what makes their advertisig potentially illegal.

I am telling you this as a member of PRSSA and a Marketing coordinator of a major franchise. 

Your post is completly wrong in every regard.  There's no possibillity of dev. interviews being viewed as false advertiisment.  He could of said Mirranda will pop out in 3-D and polish your.....remote and it'd be fine.  

I said absolutely nothing about dev interviews.
I am only talking about advertising campaigns PR/Marketing plans.
I don't even know where you got that from.

The quote is from the front page of the Mass Effect 3 website. This is considered advertising. 

It's a subjective quote that you are quantifying with your own expectations  

[thunderhawk862002]

What would make this absolutely complete would be Capcom throwing themselves into this saying that Bioware's false advertisements led people to buy Mass Effect 3 over Street Fighter x Tekken costing them sales. I doubt this would ever happen since game companies would want to protect each other. However, if a company were to do this it would be Capcom.

[Mike Shepard]

thunderhawk862002 wrote...

Mike Shepard wrote...

OK @ the guy who quoted me...I get it. People are mad about the game. It's about high expectations and the game didn't meet them. Guess what, that's your problem not the FTC's. Based on that, I had high expectations for the Boston Red Sox in 2011. And in September 2011 they fell apart. They went down slowly and steadily. it was like watching the freaking hindenberg. KABOOM! followed by a gentle fall. Based on them failing to deliver on what they advertised--that they wouldn't stop until they "restored order," I could sue them for the return of my season ticket money. Except it doesn't work like that. No game is going to live up to everything you expect from it. It's like if you haven't had apple pie in a realllllyyy long time and then you have some, and it's not as good as you remembered it, you get sad. But the apple pie is still great. What I'm saying is, this guy was within his rights to file a complaint with the FTC, sure. But it's still insane. Because the Red Sox would have a lot of lawsuits on their hands if you could sue over dissapointment...Eighty-Six years worth, in fact, because from 1918 to 2004 they were always either awful or "so close yet so far". I am not saying, "get over it! Rawr!" just...expectations...

So if Jack in the Box uses ingredients that caused food poisoning, and no one died then it's not a big deal right?  It only becomes a big deal when someone dies.  Is that your line of thinking?

HA. way to twist my words. I said, it's about expectations. Again I'll say it. In 2011 based on the advertising of the company (the Red Sox) I expected them to do great things. Instead, they soiled their pants and left people angry. Sound familiar? But in this example BioWare promised one hell of a game. Guess what. For my money, Mass Effect 3 is a pretty great game. They promised your choices would matter. Bingo again! I saw my choices make a difference. I helped someone back in the first game, so they helped me in this one. I was mean to Khalisah so she called me a thug. And that's just the vague details. Face it. They did what they said they would. The FTC complaint is within this person's rights. that doesn't mean it is sane. From where I am standing, it is a prime example of a frivoulous lawsuit. But we will never agree on this so this will be my final word on the matter. good day.

[Sidney]

AydinPaladin wrote...

I'm sorry, no.

>everytime a movie promises me a thrill a minute ride or a laught outloud experience I should sue them.  

This is considered  unreasonable puffery. Any reasonable person can tell this is hyperbole.

>the decisions you make completely shape your experience and outcome.  
This and the other advertising campaigns that say your decisions affect the ending are false. The ending is not really changed at all by your final "choice". This promise and the other ones made by BioWare were logical expectations. Any reasonable person could NOT tell this from hyperbole given the nature of the previous games. This is what makes their advertisig potentially illegal.

I am telling you this as a member of PRSSA and a Marketing coordinator of a major franchise. 

Wait, so one form of marketing is unreasonable puffery and another isn't something you should see through. Whatever the PRSSA is doesn't work in much logic now does it?

As far as it goes, your "logic" is wrong by any measure:

ME1: Sov is dead. Nothing you do can change that. You will change a lot of other non-main quest situations (council, wrex, LI). 

ME2: Well we're getting better there are 2 possible end states although none of your decisions anywhere else in the game necessarily affect the final outcome - I can go all renegade and then toast the base. Lots of non-main quest states can vary.

ME3: There are 16 possible outcomes, allegedly, based on your playstyle and decisions. That's a lot of endings right there and the options you get are controlled by how you play (your readiness) and the decisions you make.

Sorry, this is total wasteful tomfoolery that makes me wish we had a loser pays thing attached to this type of action. The endings stink, they are a major let down but they do meet the marketing hype without a doubt.

[AydinPaladin]

DemGeth wrote...

AydinPaladin wrote...

DemGeth wrote...

AydinPaladin wrote...

I'm sorry, no.

>everytime a movie promises me a thrill a minute ride or a laught outloud experience I should sue them.  

This is considered  unreasonable puffery. Any reasonable person can tell this is hyperbole.

>the decisions you make completely shape your experience and outcome.  
This and the other advertising campaigns that say your decisions affect the ending are false. The ending is not really changed at all by your final "choice". This promise and the other ones made by BioWare were logical expectations. Any reasonable person could NOT tell this from hyperbole given the nature of the previous games. This is what makes their advertisig potentially illegal.

I am telling you this as a member of PRSSA and a Marketing coordinator of a major franchise. 

Your post is completly wrong in every regard.  There's no possibillity of dev. interviews being viewed as false advertiisment.  He could of said Mirranda will pop out in 3-D and polish your.....remote and it'd be fine.  

I said absolutely nothing about dev interviews.
I am only talking about advertising campaigns PR/Marketing plans.
I don't even know where you got that from.

The quote is from the front page of the Mass Effect 3 website. This is considered advertising. 

It's a subjective quote that you are quantifying with your own expectations  

It is an advertising quote. I am confused by it. I take it to mean that my choces throughout the 3 games affect the ending. This is a reasonable assumption based on the quote
This means that a reasonable person, me, was not able to understand their puffery. I could not understand it as hyperbole. That it what defines it as potentially illegal.

Also, trust me, I had zero expectations for ME3. I honestly am amazed it's as good as it is.

[AydinPaladin]

Sidney wrote...

AydinPaladin wrote...

I'm sorry, no.

>everytime a movie promises me a thrill a minute ride or a laught outloud experience I should sue them.  

This is considered  unreasonable puffery. Any reasonable person can tell this is hyperbole.

>the decisions you make completely shape your experience and outcome.  
This and the other advertising campaigns that say your decisions affect the ending are false. The ending is not really changed at all by your final "choice". This promise and the other ones made by BioWare were logical expectations. Any reasonable person could NOT tell this from hyperbole given the nature of the previous games. This is what makes their advertisig potentially illegal.

I am telling you this as a member of PRSSA and a Marketing coordinator of a major franchise. 

Wait, so one form of marketing is unreasonable puffery and another isn't something you should see through. Whatever the PRSSA is doesn't work in much logic now does it?

As far as it goes, your "logic" is wrong by any measure:

ME1: Sov is dead. Nothing you do can change that. You will change a lot of other non-main quest situations (council, wrex, LI). 

ME2: Well we're getting better there are 2 possible end states although none of your decisions anywhere else in the game necessarily affect the final outcome - I can go all renegade and then toast the base. Lots of non-main quest states can vary.

ME3: There are 16 possible outcomes, allegedly, based on your playstyle and decisions. That's a lot of endings right there and the options you get are controlled by how you play (your readiness) and the decisions you make.

Sorry, this is total wasteful tomfoolery that makes me wish we had a loser pays thing attached to this type of action. The endings stink, they are a major let down but they do meet the marketing hype without a doubt.

Thats actually how reasonable vs unreasonable puffery is defined by the FTC. Unreasonable puffery is when a company says "The greatest game in the universe!". Anyone with any amount of logic can tell this is not true.
When BioWare says "
the decisions you make completely shape your experience and outcome.  " saying the games are all tied together, they are not being honest.
This is about what was advertised being different from what was sold. It has nothing to do with the content of any of the other games. 

PRSSA is the Public Relations Student Society of America.

Modifié par AydinPaladin, 19 mars 2012 - 03:41 .

[Teacher50]

[quote]Sidney wrote...

[quote]Teacher50 wrote...

Various advertising campaigns released before release promised that the endings would be unqiue and would be affected in a way that
the decisions you make completely shape your experience and outcome. This was not the case. This was/is false advertising. 

[/quote]

^ This is the issue...

[/quote]

No, it isn't. The end state of your game does reflect your actions. There is a choice at the end of the game. You might not like it, they might be awful but they gave me at least 3 choices I could sort out from that crap. You've also solved a host of other issues along the way that are based on your decisions.

Using this stupid way of thinking everytime a movie promises me a thrill a minute ride or a laught outloud experience I should sue them.

The FTC complaint is in its own way every bit as awful as the endings it wishes to fight.
[/quote]

[/quote] Perhaps, but I can say with some assurance that you are in the minority of peoples opinions. Just go look at the thousands of posts, news articles, and low and behold some reviewers who are notorious for being in the pocket of publishers. Perhaps you missed the point altogether.

Many books are published but few are on the best sellers list. Many movies made but only few make the most viewed list. Many publishers boost their products off of previous sales. I could go on but to what end.

I am offended by your use of "stupid way of thinking" as It illudes to me personally. But then let me ask you, was that not  Biowares same tactic to get me to buy this for $80? Perhaps you are right and I'm wrong. Maybe, you're really smarter than I.

However, what the man decided to do is his business just like your post to complain about it. Can't you be more choosy in the words you using in doing so? Thank you.
[/quote]

Modifié par Teacher50, 19 mars 2012 - 03:46 .