Something Alien: When the demo is better than the game
Damion Perrine seeks various remedies against Sega and Gearbox who served up “actual gameplay” demonstrations of Aliens: Colonial Marines. In his claim against defendants, Perrine illustrates: false advertising, breach of warranties, fraud in the inducement, negligent misrepresentation and consumer law violations. According to Polygon, Perrine relies on severalCalifornia civil and business codes. In addition to the discrepancy between the demo and the finished product, Perrine ropes video game critics into the matter by evoking the maligned practice of review code embargoes. This case may not get us to the bottom of whether Gearbox embezzledfunds to support Borderlands and Duke Nukem. Nor will it help to solve the mystery of the missingWii U version. Hopefully, it won’t resurrect that 2012 buzzword “gamer entitlement.” It should affect the video game consumer and serve as education. Caveat emptor, buyer beware, and in all cases up or down the demo certainly does not represent the final product.
Perinne asserts that a “video game’s graphic engine is the ‘guts’ that drive the entire experience, much like a car’s engine and electronic components affect its performance.” In this statement, the plaintiff actually gives Sega and Gearbox a little wiggle room. Software or a program, as it relates to uniform Commercial Code is the general term for a set of instructions that direct the computer to perform various steps to carry out a particular task. In Perinne’s statement he refers to the graphic engine of the game. Sega and Gearbox could contend that they in fact did deliver the same graphic engine as demonstrated by the demo. Without any particulars of development, we can refer to another game and its demo to see where a discrepancy may arise. Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning demonstrated several bugs and glitches that did not appear in the final product. The reason for these glitches as given by a lead dev, was that the demo was branched off from the development of the main game by a third party with older code due to time constraints. It is possible that a third party outside of Sega and Gearbox developed either the demo or the actual final product. According to reports, the actual primary development of the single player campaign was outsourced to TimeGate Studios.
Aside from supplying the actual graphic engine, Sega and Gearbox face a breach of warranty. The implied warranty of fitness is tested by three factors: the seller’s knowledge of the buyer’s particular purpose for goods, the seller’s knowledge of the buyer’s reliance on the seller’s skill and knowledge in furnishing the appropriate goods, and the buyer must in fact rely on the seller’s skill and knowledge. Perinne must demonstrate that Sega and Gearbox knew that he and others involved in the class action relied upon the skill and knowledge of the developer to provide that particular set of software for a particular use. Sega and Gearbox can respond by saying that the quality of the software did not materially affect ordinary and particular use. The court would have to decide whether the discrepancy blocks consumers from stepping “into the role os a character from the ‘Aliens’ movie.” Given the advancement of technology, a court has to consider the reasonable standard that a developer must use to immerse a player. This is going to be a tricky point to argue and the court might step away from it. A player may expect a certain level of realism in an otherwise subjective experience. That level, however, is unique and can change over time. Instead, the court may consider if the software is in working order on delivery.
The code review embargo point may not deliver the black eye or bloody nose to the practice between public relations departments or firms and the gaming media. In this case, Perinne needs to demonstrate that Sega and Gearbox actively concealed the actual quality of the final product through the embargo. Coming out of this case, we may have some insight into a particular case of concealment. At this time, consumers have unconfirmed allegations and suspicion of the process. The gaming press appears to have a love / hate relationship. Those in favor are cautious to warn consumers against early and exclusive reviews. While no particulars are confirmed, it’s alleged that websites will deal with game companies for exclusives so that either party can benefit from promotion or placement. Meanwhile, those opposed to the practice question its impact on effective consumer journalism and art criticism. Game critics, it’s suggested, live in bordertown between the two.
Independent of this class action, Gearbox Software forum user “HisRoyalSweetness”successfully was credited a refund from Steam for the purchase of Aliens: Colonical Marines. The process involved correspondence to the Better Business Bureau and the Washington State Attorney General.
Sega has already responded to claims of false advertising in the UK regarding Aliens Colonial Marines. They applied a disclaimer to trailers for the game after a claim submitted to the Advertising Standards Agency.
The Perrine case presents several challenges to the game industry going forward. The case affects how games and their demos are developed. It affects how games are marketed through exhibition and online media. It also personally affects consumers of gaming media perhaps leaving them more saavy and cautious of contributing to Day One sales. The challenge for the case: will a court be able to determine a reasonable amount of discrepancy between a game’s demo and the final product? Perinne must be successful in demonstrating that the discrepancy affected the ordinary and particular use of the software.