128 réponses à ce sujet

[Nibbin]

But it happens all the time though. You just don't know about it unless they tell you, or you pay attention to the pre-release footage a lot. Deciphering and hacking games leads to a lot of beta secrets and changes in design throughout the game. It's not a question o accountability either, it's how businesses are run, not just in the gaming industry either.  And honestly, saying Gearbox and Peter Molyneux are bad examples is showing ignorance on the entire subject. Regardless of your opinions, they are still a part of the gaming industry and showcase what has been going on since the 1980's.

 

Alternative takes and scenes in movie trailers before the final product, extended editions for dvd releases, special edition CD's or book's promising a "thrill ride to the finish" or something like that. All of that would fall under that umbrella as well, because 1) some of the quotes and things are subjective,  and 2) things always change before the final product is released.

 

Another example. Zelda for the Wii u looked like this when it was released

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=K8c_u-YARgg

 

And now looks like this a year later.

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=XZmxvig1dXE

 

And i'll bet it will change further as we go in some ways, both gameplay and story, elements seen that won't happen, and so forth. Is that false advertising though?

This is all well and good but is it right? Is it ethical? In your opinion? Why should people have to sit back and swallow this rubbish. 
I still feel my points about Molyneux and Gearbox as bad examples of how to do things is valid although your points are also extremely valid and well put.

Ultimately if someone says "This is what we're giving you for your money"
You give them the money
It's not what they said it was.

That's bad business practice, bad ethics and makes me feel extremely cynical about a company I really like. 

And all this talk about, oh they wouldn't say this and they don't have time to do that.
My point about David Gaider giving reasons for the wardens lack of inclusion is also still valid. He had time to do that, Bioware should have time to address this. 

[xnode]

Some of you are giving the OP some crap but to be honest I came here for the same reason today. After playing 100's of hours at this point, I am wondering where those "choices" really are. In multiple interviews and magazine coverage the developers kept mention "choices" in things such as "keep types", "Big plot choices" then gave prime in game examples and or a pre-viewer would "test an alpha/beta".

 

So the new trend in this industry is to "make a test bed that screams fun" and then come out with a game that really doesn't have what they showed. Nice, I would call that a twist of words, but I already know how this one would go in court.... " they never promised anything and many times informed people this is not the final product things could change"..... So in other words, let's twist it as far as we can get away with it.

 

Now this game IS amazing and if it wasn't for how crazy amazing it is I would be a bit more upset, thou I am still upset that what I seen in "let play dragon age" official videos and in previews from mag write ups (PC gamer) doesn't really come close to the actual product we are playing. While a great product it is, it definitely was not represented honestly.

 

Yet another reason to never pre-order a game from EA again, but then this one I got lucky with and actually am very happy with. Well done bioware, thou I would question again your EA marketing team ethics.

[LinksOcarina]

This is all well and good but is it right? Is it ethical? In your opinion? Why should people have to sit back and swallow this rubbish. 
I still feel my points about Molyneux and Gearbox as bad examples of how to do things is valid although your points are also extremely valid and well put.

Ultimately if someone says "This is what we're giving you for your money"
You give them the money
It's not what they said it was.

That's bad business practice, bad ethics and makes me feel extremely cynical about a company I really like. 

And all this talk about, oh they wouldn't say this and they don't have time to do that.
My point about David Gaider giving reasons for the wardens lack of inclusion is also still valid. He had time to do that, Bioware should have time to address this. 

 

I hate to say it, but questions of this being right or ethical are irrelevent.

 

You cut out features shown to people because they don't work, or need to be reworked, you change aspects of a game so it fits better with the overall scheme of the game mechanics. You remove content or don't finish content, and ship when you have to. It's been like that forever. Keeping it in when it doesn't work would be more, in my opinion, wrong, because the promises found in a game would be drowned out by bad game design.

 

Now a days, we have things like DLC and patching which fix issues in the game, which give us lost, unfinished, or new content again, and the pretext of Alpha footage being the absolute moniker of "this is not complete, subject to change" have done positive things, I would say. Ethically, possibly a grey area, but for the past ten years, we have seen games become more complete over time, with the "service model" of gaming that Valve started to supply the market with constant updates and content we would never see, it would just be some coding in the game.

 

If something is not included or changed, it's a part of the design and building process of the game, almost like building a house, but I hate using false equivalencies. Simply put, you have an idea, a foundation, and you see if it works, if it doesn't, you make it work a different way. Having a good producer who needs to make that decision whether or not to continue exploring that aspect of the game is critical in the end, so you can stay on budget and on time. If you throw in everything you wanted in a game, it would be a mess of a game then and would likely never be released.

 

I understand the cynicism, but in the end it's misplaced I feel, at least, in this case. This is not a patent abuse of anything. Abuse of advertising is what Grarbox did.

[Spectre 117]

This is all well and good but is it right? Is it ethical? In your opinion? Why should people have to sit back and swallow this rubbish. 
I still feel my points about Molyneux and Gearbox as bad examples of how to do things is valid although your points are also extremely valid and well put.

Ultimately if someone says "This is what we're giving you for your money"
You give them the money
It's not what they said it was.

That's bad business practice, bad ethics and makes me feel extremely cynical about a company I really like. 

And all this talk about, oh they wouldn't say this and they don't have time to do that.
My point about David Gaider giving reasons for the wardens lack of inclusion is also still valid. He had time to do that, Bioware should have time to address this. 

 

This isn't an issue of ethics. A lot of things happen during development that can lead to some ideas getting redone or simply scrapped. Sometimes developers have to cut an entire segment because it no longer fits with everything else, other times they have to cut something because it doesn't work, or they don't have enough time or resources to pull it off and in some cases there is feasible way in which it can be implemented due to hardware limitations. This isn't something new, this has been going on for years. 

 

For example, The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker was originally going to have two more dungeons than with what it shipped. They couldn't implement the properly and had to scrap them until eventually those two dungeons made their way to other games.

 

Bethesda games are famous for having to scrap things due to hardware limitation. For example when they announced Oblivion, they had a demo that showed the attack on Kvatch and how you had to defend the city. In the final product, that was severely limited due to the Xbox's limited hardware. The same thing happened with Skyrim and the civil war. They tried to make it very big, but eventually had to reduce the size due to the hardware limitations of the Xbox and PS3. 

[Nibbin]

I hate to say it, but questions of this being right or ethical are irrelevent.

 

You cut out features shown to people because they don't work, or need to be reworked, you change aspects of a game so it fits better with the overall scheme of the game mechanics. You remove content or don't finish content, and ship when you have to. It's been like that forever. Keeping it in when it doesn't work would be more, in my opinion, wrong, because the promises found in a game would be drowned out by bad game design.

 

Now a days, we have things like DLC and patching which fix issues in the game, which give us lost, unfinished, or new content again, and the pretext of Alpha footage being the absolute moniker of "this is not complete, subject to change" have done positive things, I would say. Ethically, possibly a grey area, but for the past ten years, we have seen games become more complete over time, with the "service model" of gaming that Valve started to supply the market with constant updates and content we would never see, it would just be some coding in the game.

 

If something is not included or changed, it's a part of the design and building process of the game, almost like building a house, but I hate using false equivalencies. Simply put, you have an idea, a foundation, and you see if it works, if it doesn't, you make it work a different way. Having a good producer who needs to make that decision whether or not to continue exploring that aspect of the game is critical in the end, so you can stay on budget and on time. If you throw in everything you wanted in a game, it would be a mess of a game then and would likely never be released.

 

I understand the cynicism, but in the end it's misplaced I feel, at least, in this case. This is not a patent abuse of anything. Abuse of advertising is what Grarbox did.

I disagree with using "how its done for the last ten years" argument and I'd still be interested in your opinion of if this is right and ethical because to me (as it should be) your opinion on that is anything but irrelevant. 

This argument is exhausting in it's intricasies and I suppose all you can hope for is that things will get better in the future.
Ultimately I love the game BUT:

Bioware: "Oh we said there's going to be certain content and made a fuss about it but it's not there? Lol, no comment"

Nibbin greatly disapproves 

[LinksOcarina]

I disagree with using "how its done for the last ten years" argument and I'd still be interested in your opinion of if this is right and ethical because to me (as it should be) your opinion on that is anything but irrelevant. 

This argument is exhausting in it's intricasies and I suppose all you can hope for is that things will get better in the future.
Ultimately I love the game BUT:

Bioware: "Oh we said there's going to be certain content and made a fuss about it but it's not there? Lol, no comment"

Nibbin greatly disapproves 

 

My opinion is it's not unethical, it's simply a product of the creation process. Anyone making a movie, writing a book, typing up things or taking pictures, you have to cut content and change your direction many times due to who you cast, what you write, how you write it, where you take pictures, etc.

 

It's an artist thing, basically. We just happen to be dealing with commercial art. 

[Nibbin]

My opinion is it's not unethical, it's simply a product of the creation process. Anyone making a movie, writing a book, typing up things or taking pictures, you have to cut content and change your direction many times due to who you cast, what you write, how you write it, where you take pictures, etc.

 

It's an artist thing, basically. We just happen to be dealing with commercial art. 

Ah but that cutting and crafting comes WAY before any sort of public exposure in all those other mediums. If you see a trailer, the films already been made. If you see a piece of theatre (unless it's a workshop) then it's the finished product that has been cut and crafted for anywhere between a few weeks and potentially years. If I saw a trailer for a film and it had 70 foot trolls in it but then in the film there was no mention or showing of these trolls, and the filmmaker gave NO comment or justification for this: people would be ****** off and they'd have every right to be.

If stephen King gave an in depth interview about his upcoming book and said it was going to be about a space mole called Gary, and then the book rolls around, people buy it and there is no mention or showing of a space mole called Gary and is instead about something completely different....but he gave no justification or explanation for this.
People would have questions, and rightly so.
 
But apparently this is ok in video games. 
It's not. 


And you writing it off as "just part of the artistic process" is also wrong and doing yourself an utter disservice. 

[aaarcher86]

The footage of that quest wasn't even advertised. Someone taped pre alpha footage at Pax.

[Giubba]

DAI was clearly falsely advertised.

1 - Back to Origins

2 - PC lead platform

3 - Old tactical camera back

4 - Listening to the community

 

But there is not even need to go beyond 1, they said multiple times that they were going to do something that would bring back elements people liked in Origins, they explained, they talked about it. Now... I don't know what MODDED VERSION of Dragon Age Origins you did play but vanilla it looks nothing like this "dumbed down console action RPG". Nothing they ever said or showed barely resembles the final product, they mislead consumers all the time focusing on what they knew was great to make us WOW and like the game. It worked for everybody that wanted a great game but it didn't for anyone who wanted Origins back so, well, they have the freedom to kick Origins ass and say goodbye to everything fans loved, yeah they surely can, but they can't do it while advertising they were in fact trying to please those who loved DAO and hated DA2 if they made a game even worse than DA2 and even further from Origins.

 

It's possible to sue cretine like this one?

[Nibbin]

The footage of that quest wasn't even advertised. Someone taped pre alpha footage at Pax.

I've never touted this as the reason for my argument, my points were regarding the customizable keeps which were expressly talked about by bioware.
As soon as the dev uses it as a tool for talking about and showing off the game...then it should be in the game. 

[egervari]

Do you think Inquisition was falsely advertised?

It was, in some areas.

[Draining Dragon]

You can sue for ANYTHING in America.

We have no shortage of unscrupulous lawyers.

[Father_Jerusalem]

Go right ahead and try.

 

I'm just going to be sitting here making popcorn. And laughing.

 

So. So. So. SO much laughing. 

[Brovikk Rasputin]

Things change during development. Sure you can sue, but you'll likely lose the case. 

[DemGeth]

OP needs to stop making threads and hire an attorney.

He's been victimized and needs to go to court.

[aaarcher86]

I've never touted this as the reason for my argument, my points were regarding the customizable keeps which were expressly talked about by bioware.
As soon as the dev uses it as a tool for talking about and showing off the game...then it should be in the game.

I was referencing the OPs point on saving the town or Keep, not you.

[gay_wardens]

Why not? Universal tried to sue Nintendo for naming Donkey Kong after King Kong. They lost, but what you're suggesting is no worse.

[SofaJockey]

It's a cute concept OP but as it does does not apply to DAI 

I suggest this thread be moved to the (off topic) Lobby where hypotheticals may be discussed.

[Vandicus]

I've never touted this as the reason for my argument, my points were regarding the customizable keeps which were expressly talked about by bioware.
As soon as the dev uses it as a tool for talking about and showing off the game...then it should be in the game. 

That does demand an effective oath of silence on anything devs aren't absolutely sure will make the final release(meaning much less information pre-release).

 

SWTOR's Austin studio more or less takes that approach(and complaints about "lack of communication" are endless). It does rather successfully avoid complaints about false advertising though.

[Kantr]

If Peter Molyneux hasn't gotten sued for false advertisement, then I doubt anyone else will be sued for removing a quest or changing some quest/gameplay element.

The Gearbox case is very different to what you are asking.

Aye, I fell for his promises with Godus. Not what I wanted at all.

[cronshaw]

OP let me know how your lawsuit goes

I'm thinking of suing Alka Seltzer because it clearly fizzes more than twice when you put it in water

I'm also dubious about the onomatopoeia "plop," that is never the noise it makes when I drop it in the water

[xnode]

meh random crap being handed to the OP but to be honest if it was worse you all would be on his side. It's a legit concern, would I sue over it? Nope , but then the trend of marketing people saying "well the public didn't really complain, let's do that ploy again but this time make it even better!" aka let's release a pre-scripted event bigger and better and say "content subject to change" yet boast it as "it's in game". Keep going against the OP on this, you will be on the loosing end.

 

I am not saying agree to a law suite that's just silly, but to the actual reason why, that should be a concern to all players whom call themselves gamers.