Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

California Man Sues Sony Because Killzone: Shadowfall Isn't Really 1080p

Comments Filter:
  • more power to him (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 07, 2014 @12:33PM (#47623487)

    as much as I don't care, some game companies need their hands slapped when it comes to false advertising. anyone remember simcity 4 multiplayer?

    • by ganjadude (952775) on Thursday August 07, 2014 @12:54PM (#47623721) Homepage
      go back even further, remember the atari games that would have box art that looked NOTHING like the game itself? http://games.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]
      • by MtHuurne (602934)

        Unfortunately the site hosting TFA from that story seems to be gone. In my opinion the most deceptive thing about 80's game boxes wasn't the cover art: it was pretty clear it wasn't representative of the in-game graphics. However, a lot of games were available on multiple systems and the box would often feature screen shots from a different system. Some had fine print stating which system the shots were from and some didn't even have that, but in either case there were more than a few game boxes with screen

        • by ganjadude (952775)
          heh, i didnt even check the original link, I just did a google of it for a link saw a slashdot link from 2010 and thought why not? but thats a valid point too, i recall some games that were arcade ports that were HORRIBLE ports...but box art had game play from the arcade versions. just wrong
  • They deserve it (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 07, 2014 @12:34PM (#47623491)

    One one hand, this is a stupid frivolous lawsuit, but on the other hand game publishers have been feeding us so much bullshit and lies that I wish this guy would win just to make a point.

    • One one hand, this is a stupid frivolous lawsuit, but on the other hand game publishers have been feeding us so much bullshit and lies that I wish this guy would win just to make a point.

      IANAL, but I doubt he will win. It seems to me that the proper remedy for him is to return the product and get his money back.

      Sony should be punished for lying, but I don't see how one person suing them is going to work. Others may be satisfied with the product, even if Sony was being dishonest about its capabilities.

      Now, if a group of consumers started a class action suit against Sony for this, I'd imagine their chances of winning would be much better.

      • But that's not how the system can work out, or else everyone will make outlandish claims about their product, knowing well that the product has no chance of delivering, and should someone actually notice and complain that he doesn't get what he paid for, all they have to do is return HIS money? Now where is the incentive to be honest?

        Actually, that's like stealing and only having to pay the price of the item if you get caught. Why bother trying to stay honest? At worst I'm no worse off than a honest guy, at

      • by entrigant (233266)

        "class" and "action" are the 12th and 13th words in the damned summary.. Have /. readers stopped even bothering with the summaries anymore?

    • I hope he wins because...fuck sony

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 07, 2014 @12:34PM (#47623493)

    So he should just take it up the rear and not do anything about the company's lies? BOHICA! I'm glad he's suing. Let him represent the rest of us. Hopefully, companies will learn that they can't get away with this BS.

  • You go girl (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Russ1642 (1087959) on Thursday August 07, 2014 @12:34PM (#47623497)

    I'm for it. Blatant false advertizing needs to be punished and this is the route that's available to him.

    • Re:You go girl (Score:5, Interesting)

      by sconeu (64226) on Thursday August 07, 2014 @12:50PM (#47623675) Homepage Journal

      Now go after them for their blatant false advertising:

      "OWN $MOVIE ON BLU-RAY TODAY!!!", when they later actually claim that you don't own the movie.

      • by firex726 (1188453)

        Yea, they need to say Lease, since you are in effect leasing it for a one time fee for, however many years that they keep the authentication servers online (for digital content).

      • by zzottt (629458)
        its because you own the bluray but not the contents of said bluray. It might be slight of hand but if you are literal and pay attention to the words being used its not bait and switch
        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward
          I think your interpretation is incorrect. The sentence says you own $MOVIE, which is on "BLU-RAY". You are giving them credit for saying "Own Blu-Ray with $MOVIE on it". YMMV
        • by thaylin (555395)
          "Own on" implies you own the content, not just the medium after the on.

          If I say eat cheese on crackers that implies that I actually get to eat the cheese and the crackers

        • by omnichad (1198475)

          If they said "Own the [title] Blu-Ray today" you would be right. They say you own the movie in their wording.

        • Actually if they really say "own $movie on blueray", it's exactly the opposite. They claim that you OWN the movie, which comes delivered on blue ray as the medium.

      • by Lumpy (12016)

        or the fact that 99% of blurays are actually worse than the DVD. I have a superbit DVD of the 5th element that looks drastically better than the crap they released for the blu ray. OOOOOOHHHHH FILM GRAIN!!!!!

        • by omnichad (1198475)

          Superbit is just a marketing trick telling you that they normally crap out on DVD's, but are making an exception for you. It's not something to charge for - it's exactly what they should be doing all along. If you get a dual-layer release of a movie and they didn't even bother to try to fill most of it with the film at the highest possible bitrate, they have failed you. Same for buying a double-feature on DVD - you know where the compromise is.

          Not only did Sony make an improved version of The 5th Element

      • Re:You go girl (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Lendrick (314723) on Thursday August 07, 2014 @05:06PM (#47626153) Homepage Journal

        There needs to be an addition to contract law wherein if something is in large print, it trumps anything in small print.

    • Re:You go girl (Score:5, Insightful)

      by CanHasDIY (1672858) on Thursday August 07, 2014 @12:50PM (#47623681) Homepage Journal

      I'm for it. Blatant false advertizing needs to be punished and this is the route that's available to him.

      On the one hand, I agree with this, especially considering that Sony is pretty well known for their shady business practices.

      On the other hand... I just bought a monitor that Tigerdirect advertised as 22", but when it was delivered the box says 21.5", and I don't think that's really worth paying my lawyer $250/hr to handle.

      • by firex726 (1188453)

        The monitor is 22", the viewable area is 21.5"; the monitor's actual screen extends and is covered by the bezel on the sides.

        It's actually an area with a good amount of research being done, minimizing the bezel and getting as much viewable area from a display as possible.

      • by jesseck (942036)

        On the other hand... I just bought a monitor that Tigerdirect advertised as 22", but when it was delivered the box says 21.5", and I don't think that's really worth paying my lawyer $250/hr to handle.

        It's common practice for monitors to be advertised by class and not actual screen size (such as 22" Class LED Monitor, or a 50" TV measuring 49.5"). It is not common practice (and wrong) for 1080p video to mean "720p" - those are distinct values. The video "class" is HD, but specific "size" is 1080p or 720p.

      • by tippe (1136385)

        On the other hand... I just bought a monitor that Tigerdirect advertised as 22", but when it was delivered the box says 21.5", and I don't think that's really worth paying my lawyer $250/hr to handle.

        I wonder if that sort of thing harkens back to the CRT days, when you were usually quoted the tube size (not the actual visible size). For example, the brand new, large-screen 24" TV you bought back in the 90's probably only had a 22" viewing size if you were to actually measure it. In your case, I wonder if Tigerdirect online was quoting the LCD panel size, while the box the monitor came in was referring to the viewing size...

    • by jythie (914043)
      Sad thing is, this is something regulators and the DoJ SHOULD be doing, but instead they drop the burden on citizens like this to foot the bill for prosecution.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 07, 2014 @12:36PM (#47623519)

    The guy just wants his $50 back because the graphics in the game aren't as good as advertised. Frankly, that's actually a reasonable request. You tell someone the game will perform some technical feat, and it doesn't, no shit the customer wants a refund.

    • by firex726 (1188453)

      Hell, I am surprise it does not happen more often.

      How far does it have to go before it's false advertising. You have companies shopping in-game screenshots and using them as advertising of the final product. Or using special render/graphics settings not available to users for in-game trailer footage.

    • Namely the "no refunds EVAR" on games that retailers seem to take. Even if it doesn't work, oh well too bad it's software so you can't have your money back. It really shouldn't be allowed. Anything else you can take back if there's a problem, but not software because "Oh you might be an evil pirate!"

  • .... Awwww, do I even need a reason?
    If I sprain my ankle, while I'm robbing your place.
    If I hurt my knuckles, when I punch you in the face!
    I'm gonna sue, sue, yes I'm gonna sue!
    Sue, sue, yeah, that's what I'm gonna do!
    I'm gonna sue, sue, yes I'm gonna sue!
    Sue, sue, I might even sue you! Ugh!

  • Troll much? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jahoda (2715225) on Thursday August 07, 2014 @12:47PM (#47623651) Homepage
    Kind of a trollish headline, but both Sony and Microsoft have advertised 1080p as one of this generations' primary selling points - how is their continued inability to deliver upon this not false advertising, and how else are we to change their behavior if not through legal action? (Please don't say "boycott".)
    • by drinkypoo (153816)

      (Please don't say "boycott".)

      Sorry, but depriving them of profit is still the best way to show your dissatisfaction. If you just can't live without the games anyway, then clearly you're not really all that dissatisfied.

    • What else is interesting is that the "underpowered" Wii U has more 1080p games than the high powered systems. And they look gorgeous.

  • I too am sick of companies getting away with false advertizing of all kinds. (This wouldn't be a problem if it was simply a failure to develop according to plan, but they also advertize their resolution on the box.)

  • The game does run at 1080P in single player, the issue is that the game does not run at true 1080P in multi player.

    I don't really see the issue myself, as much as I dislike Sony they probably should win this one.

    Besides the whole issue will probably disappear in a couple of patches.... (everything is in beta these days.)

    • by Zelucifer (740431)

      I'm confused. You're saying they're not delivering what they advertised, and yet they should win? How do you think that works.

  • What is this garbage? Make all games 1920x1080, 60 fps, low latency. The hardware is powerful enough to make even good-looking games with these specs if you want to.
    • by timeOday (582209)
      PC games really do (or did, I don't know) have the upper hand here. On the same hardware, you could run a higher resolution with less detail, or a lower resolution with more detail, your choice. Or on a "mega" system (including a low-end system from 5 years after the game was released), get high resolution AND maximum detail.

      Is it just me or is the current gen of consoles really underwhelming, hardware-wise?

      • It's a price issue. A high-end graphics card can cost as much as the entire console - margins are so tight, it's common for manufacturers to lose money on the consoles at times in order win market share and thus game licence money. They have to skimp on the hardware. Not many people are going to buy a PS3 if the XBox One is $90 more expensive, and vice versa.

        Nintendo found a great solution: They have pathetically slow hardware and freely admit it, instead choosing to focus on genres that don't demand high p

        • by timeOday (582209)
          Well, that strategy was a home run with the Wii, not so much lately. Selling hardware to run graphically unimpressive games was an entirely different business before smartphones became ubiquitous, because they largely fill that role.
  • People with functioning brains will remember CRT monitors measured in inches, hard drives measured in 1000 instead of 1024 kbytes, 4G phones that weren't. Nothing happened to them, and nothing will happen in this instance. The judge will rule: It's common advertising, all vendors do it, and people understand what it means, so worrying about it is being pedantic.

FORTH IF HONK THEN

Working...