California Man Sues Sony Because Killzone: Shadowfall Isn't Really 1080 286
Sonny Yatsen (603655) writes A California man with nothing better to do has launched a class-action lawsuit against Sony because he claims he was harmed because Killzone: Shadowfall's multiplayer mode doesn't have native 1080p resolution as Sony originally claimed. He now demands 'all economic, monetary, actual, consequential, statutory and compensatory damages' as well as punitive damages from Sony.
more power to him (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re:more power to him (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
They deserve it (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
"class" and "action" are the 12th and 13th words in the damned summary.. Have /. readers stopped even bothering with the summaries anymore?
Re: (Score:2)
I hope he wins because...fuck sony
Re:They deserve it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
720p is absolutely HD, regardless of what's happened to your mind.
The specifically promised 1080p, not HD.
and it's not even 720p either. It's some weird half scale that they're up-scaling to fit the screen.
The game's packaging also features a "1080p HD video output" logo on the back of the box.
But, as Digital Foundry pointed out in a March analysis, Killzone's multiplayer mode actually outputs natively in 960x1080 resolution, half of the 1920x1080 standard for "1080p." To output full 1080p graphics, this source image is fixed with a "temporal upscale" that fills in gaps with a horizontal interlace made up of pixels from the previous frame. The result is graphical performance that the lawsuit (and many reviews) call "blurry to the point of distraction."
Re:They deserve it (Score:4, Insightful)
That quote is also likely incorrect. It's almost certainly sending 1920x1080 signal to the TV. But rendering at 960x180. Atari emulators can do 1080p HD video output. The company knew what they were doing when they intentionally used weasel wording for their 1080p logo.
Re:They deserve it (Score:4, Informative)
720p60 is absolutely true HD... but for various real-world technical reasons, natively-interlaced 1080i60 source that gets transcoded to faux 720p60 is NOT equal to native 720p60.
True 720p60 is a beautiful thing. It's sad to see how many people have forgotten what smooth, lifelike video is supposed to look like, because almost everything on TV now is stuttering 30fps (look at turn signals & railroad crossing lights for the most graphic example of why that's bad).
99 times out of 100, a nominally 1920x1080 60 field/second video is going to REALLY be 1440x1080. To convert it to 720p60, it's treated like 60fps 1440x540, then resampled to reduce the horizontal resolution to 1280, and interpolate the vertical resolution up to 720.
Re:They deserve it (Score:5, Informative)
Except 720p was always defined as HD.
Initially, you had two choices: 720progressive or 1080interlaced. They both required more-or-less the same bandwidth to run. 1080p is more of a Jonny-come-lately.
Many preferred 720p for some shows where the progressive scan adding an important benefit: mostly fast-moving scenes (sports, action, etc). Others preferred interlaced for shows that didn't need the fine detail in motion.
Eventually, years later, 1080p became a thing but for a while some TVs didn't even support it. And heck, cable-TV only recently started supported in limited amounts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're mostly right, except about fast-moving scenes. 720p is sharper for low-motion scenes. In ATSC over the air, most (if not all) 720p signals are 29.97 frames per second, rather than 59.94 as in 1080i. 1080i has double the temporal resolution of 720p in most cases.
Many TV shows are shot for a film-look format of 24 frames per second, and then converted via 3:2 pulldown for broadcast at 29.97fps. A lot of TV's will reverse that back to 24fps (if the TV says 120Hz refresh or more).
Re: (Score:2)
Except 720p was always defined as HD.
That's true. 720p was always defined as HD. Not "Partial HD", but just HD. Then 1080p was defined as "Full HD". Now, if we apply some basic reasoning to this situation...
If 1080p is "Full HD", and 720p is less than 1080p, then 720p is not "Full HD", and it is not inaccurate to describe it as partially-full HD, or partial HD, acccording to the English language.
This is one of those not-so-rare moments when there is some discrepancy between the English language and marketers' language.
Re: (Score:3)
English assumes that jargon words are different than literary words, so it is not a gap between marketing-speak and English, but between literary English and technical English. HD is not "Partial HD" but it is partial HD, where "partial" is a literary word and HD is a jargon word. This is true because in Full HD the "full" is jargon, but jargon alligned with the literary meaning. So partial becomes true once full is there as a reference. Even though HD was full HD before there was Full HD. But then it was n
Re:They deserve it (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
720p is just as much HD as 1080i. 1080i only has 540 vertical lines per field. 1080p broadcast is relatively new - and only available via cable/satellite right now (and I doubt it's 1080p60).
In fact, most of the broadcast networks settled on 720p as their native format. 1080i is used more for networks that focus on sports and need the extra temporal resolution.
Re: (Score:2)
I realize this. 720p is the lowest upgrade to NTSC. This is what Comcast shot for. Everyone must upgrade, and they get the minimum.
When you rent or buy a 1080p(or i) and player to watch a video, after having seen the same in 720, the difference makes people go crazy. They feel robbed. That's how I feel. This isn't a screed about customer service, monopolies, etc. It's about resolution, and Comcast and others are delivering the bare bottom media.
Re: (Score:3)
wrong. 480p is the LOWEST upgrade to NTSC. Learn your ATSC standards.
Re: (Score:2)
But it's not HDTV. It's EDTV, as in Enhanced Definition. ATSC can be a transport, but that doesn't make this sow's ear into a silk purse.
Re: (Score:2)
Advertise it correctly and not try to bullshit people into paying for stuff they CANNOT even deliver?
Re:They deserve it (Score:4, Funny)
Agreed. When downloading shows, I make sure to never get the HD stuff because the SD stuff just looks awful in comparison. Without that comparison, though, I'm usually good with a SD version.
"With Nothing Better To Do"? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:"With Nothing Better To Do"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly... What was with the opening?
If they claimed X and did not deliver it, it's a legitimate claim to be made. Should game companies be immune to false advertising claims just becuase they make "video games".
Would the writer also say that the Aliens:CM false trailer was also frivolous?
Re: (Score:3)
No, but I think it's time to sue the maker of "The Never-Ending Story".
The book sure is a tome (and the movie doesn't even come CLOSE to its depth), but still doesn't quite live up to its claim.
You go girl (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
If I say eat cheese on crackers that implies that I actually get to eat the cheese and the crackers
Re: (Score:2)
If they said "Own the [title] Blu-Ray today" you would be right. They say you own the movie in their wording.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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!!!!!
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, the difference *now* is that they show the *actual* screen size somewhere in the specs.
Of course, the difference now is that there is no difference: Back when we were buying CRTs, it was always normal for the advert to include the viewable area — some didn't, but most did. The cheapies in Computer Shopper were often advertised solely by viewable area, since they were trying to cram as many products into a single small ad as possible. Often you could milk another quarter-inch or so by fiddling with the controls, at risk of some slight distortion, so you'd actually get more than was adver
Re: (Score:2)
Seems more reasonable once you read the article (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
It also raises a good issue (Score:2)
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!"
I sued Ben Affleck..... (Score:2)
.... 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)
Re: (Score:3)
(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.
Re: (Score:3)
What else is interesting is that the "underpowered" Wii U has more 1080p games than the high powered systems. And they look gorgeous.
False advertizing. (Score:2)
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.)
It is 1080P (Score:2)
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.)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm confused. You're saying they're not delivering what they advertised, and yet they should win? How do you think that works.
Re: (Score:2)
There's always disclaimers about how your multiplayer experience may vary.
That primarily disclaims things outside Sony's control, in particular:
a) "the behaviour of the other players"
A "PG" game with mutliplayer that allows text or voice chat... well it might not be PG in multiplayer depending who you are playing with. Most games disclaim that, or even say that "Multiplayer is Not Rated".
b) The network (latency, etc) -- if you are on satellite in Hawaii multiplayer network performance is going to suck more
The real deal (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is it just me or is the current gen of consoles really underwhelming, hardware-wise?
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
No Issue Here (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
In this case the game uses some kind of weird temporal scaling in multiplayer mode, where it renders at 1/2 resolution (960x1080) and then combines two successive frames into one via horizontal interlacing. It looks terrible, blurry as hell and very off-putting. Makes multiplayer almost unbearable.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not scaling and it only looks slightly blurry with fast movement, otherwise it look just as if it was rendered at full resolution.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not spatial scaling, no. Their term of temporal scaling describes what's going on just fine.
Re: (Score:2)
sit more than 9 feet from the screen and 1080p becomes meaningless.
Re: (Score:2)
That statement is entirely meaningless without defining a screen size.
Re: Are you kidding me? (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, but if I promised my date a whole four inches then gave her a magnifying glass, surely she'd still be disappointed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In all seriousness.... what kind of society have we become when we sue over something so meaningless?
Well, we'd be a society that has a problem with outright fraud, for one.
On the other hand, we're already a society that allows torture, dictators, and general lawlessness. We allow the murder of innocent babies, engagement in non-defensive wars, and for children to get lost in foster care systems. We allow bankers to lie to investors about mortgage quality without going to jail, while penny-ante thieves get jailed for years. We let drunk drivers drive and kill again, and again, and again, and again.
So ho
Re: (Score:2)
You should have left out the baby bit - all the other complaints span political divides, but abortion is a factional issue.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Are you kidding me? (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay maybe its not the kind of thing I would be willing to invest time and money in; but you could easily ask the opposite question:
What kind of society have we become when we allow vendors to blatantly misrepresent products prior to sale?
Sony should be honest about the products actual specifications. We have regulations in place because we collectively decided that all the snake-oil selling had to stop. We standardized weights and measures, and pass truth in advertising laws. They should be followed, simple as that.
Re: (Score:2)
Fallacy of "frivolous" lawsuits is that they are only frivolous when it is not affecting you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Rounded rectangles, man.
Rounded fucking rectangles.
Re:That's a garbage lawsuit (Score:5, Insightful)
- so every second line consists of pixels from previous frames, but those are still pixels that are not the same as the ones in the current frame, the output has all of the 1920x1080 pixels in it, it's not like 2 lines of pixels are just 1 line stretched vertically. Technically Sony should win this.
That's a bit disingenuous. Could they render at 320x240 and stretch to fill so the output resolution is still technically 1080p and still advertise "1080p" support?
Re: (Score:2)
We use 24 fields at 320*270, interlaced vertically and horizontally, to provide a true 1920x1080 resolution picture to our customers, with field updates at 60FPS. Never mind that the whole screen only updates 2.5 times per second; we believe that this provides a full-quality experience, avoids upscaling the image, and nicely lines our pockets with your hard-earned, sweet, sweet cash.
--No one, Ever.
Re: (Score:3)
What you're describing is what TV sets already do to display interlaced video. The reason why "1080p!" is an advertising point is because 1080i, even after interpolation, is inferior; that's why they weren't using that less-deceptive description to begin with.
If they don't like being sued for fraud they can stop committing fraud.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, your explanation is like a designer saying: "What, you wanted the picture with a 1920x1080 resolution? Yea, I made it 320x240 and then stretched it using Microsoft Paint and saved it at a higher resolution. It's 1920x1080, what's your problem?"
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever happened to 1920x1200? When I need another monitor for the office, I always look for these, they are harder to come by nowadays.
Grab the BenQ BL2411PT. It comes with an 1920x1200 IPS panel. Also doesn't use PWM dimming, so no eye strain or headaches.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's really upscaling to 1080p
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No, to get 960x1080, every second *column* is filled with pixels from the previous frame, and those *are* pixels from the previous frame; Sony and Guerrilla's argument is BS, and that's what the guy's beef is: The game is not presenting 1920x1080 from the current frame, but only half that, and the blurring is degrading the image. As the part you quoted states: "The result is graphical performance that the lawsuit (and many reviews) call 'blurry to the point of distraction.'"
Also, 1920x1080 is a standard bec
Re: (Score:2)
They are not pixels from the previous frames. They are new pixels generated using pixels and motion vectors from the previous frames.
Re:That's a garbage lawsuit (Score:5, Insightful)
Killzone's multiplayer mode actually outputs natively in 960x1080 resolution, half of the 1920x1080 standard for "1080p." To output full 1080p graphics, this source image is fixed with a "temporal upscale" that fills in gaps with a horizontal interlace made up of pixels from the previous frame. The result is graphical performance that the lawsuit (and many reviews) call "blurry to the point of distraction."
Last time I checked that's called interlaced video, not progressive. Just because source video is 1080i, but goes out the HDMI video transmitter chip as 1080p it does not make it OK to call it 1080p since the source video is not progressive.
Re:That's a garbage lawsuit (Score:4, Insightful)
To output full 1080p graphics, this source image is fixed with a "temporal upscale" that fills in gaps with a horizontal interlace made up of pixels from the previous frame.
- so every second line consists of pixels from previous frames, but those are still pixels that are not the same as the ones in the current frame, the output has all of the 1920x1080 pixels in it
So..in other words, they advertised 1080p and are delivering 1080i, but presumably at a 1080p frame rate instead of the usual, faster 1080i rate.
I think you're trying to argue that it's still 1080, and it is, but it's still not what they advertised. No, this guy shouldn't be suing them. The FTC should be fining them for false advertising.
Re: (Score:2)
No, this guy shouldn't be suing them. The FTC should be fining them for false advertising.
Yes, he should be suing him, He is the consumer who was the victim of false advertising.
And Yes the FTC should be fining Sony.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds like they reinvented interlacing, one of the great evils of the analog era.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm wi
Re: (Score:2)
I'm no expert, but isn't their "novel idea" essentially 1080i?
Re:1080 is 1080 (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
That's arguable. Pretty much all AAA games render some stuff (shadows, particle effects, etc...) at half or quarter resolution. Where do you draw the line between what's native resolution or not?
Re: (Score:3)
That's arguable. Pretty much all AAA games render some stuff (shadows, particle effects, etc...) at half or quarter resolution. Where do you draw the line between what's native resolution or not?
Well, having 0% of the content as native resolution being "not" might be a good place to start that most people could agree on.
Re:1080 is 1080 (Score:4, Funny)
A miserable little pile of pixels.
Re:First world problems (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, it's a first-world problem, but at the same time, that doesn't excuse Sony (and Microsoft) for their false advertising.
Placed side by side with the worst atrocities in the world, all kinds of problems seem trivial. Still, they're problems. So you say "this guy has a serious first-world problem," and I say, "Isn't the world bad enough without companies like Sony and Microsoft piling on little bits of bullshit everywhere? Those little bits add up."
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that's why he's using a serious first world solution, rather than the old school way of gathering a tribe to sack and torch Sony's headquarters.
Re: (Score:2)
Know what else is a first world problem? Bitching about first world problems on Slashdot.
Does not change the fact that Sony is making a bogus claim in their advertising claims.
Is it life threatening? Absolutely not. But it's still false advertising, which is still illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Nathan Fillion is speechless.gif (Score:5, Funny)
I don't get what the .gif is supposed to mean. Are you trying to reference an image? Why didn't you hyperlink to it?
Fucking puerile moron.
Boy, that escalated quickly!
.jpg :)
Whatever... I learned a new word today! puerile.png FTW.