I knew what the machine did when I bought it. Admittedly I'm an enthusiast.I won't use the 50 dollars even if I get the email, people need to stop blaming companies for them not doing research. If you are going to spend 300 dollars couldn't you take 30 minutes to see what you are actually buying?
I knew what the machine did when I bought it. Admittedly I'm an enthusiast.
I saw the ads and felt they were kind of deceptive.
I don't see a problem with them being punished by having to give... credit to spend on more Sony products.
And I truly don't understand all the people who are so... upset about them being punished.
I'll gladly take the credit and spend it.
I won't use the 50 dollars even if I get the email, people need to stop blaming companies for them not doing research. If you are going to spend 300 dollars couldn't you take 30 minutes to see what you are actually buying?
D:Normally I give companies the benefit of the doubt on things
I disagree with the lawsuit so when I receive the email about the credit I will respectfully be declining.
I disagree with the lawsuit so when I receive the email about the credit I will respectfully be declining.
I think it is all a bit silly - nothing that other ads don't do, except perhaps Sony missed out some small print like 'not all games support remote play' or similar - like the 'some sequences shortened' with smartphone ads.
I feel I was falsely advertised to. I bought a Vita under the impression Sony was going to support it, now they've pretty much said they aren't making anymore big games for it leaving it purely in the hands of third-party developers.
They abandoned it.
Yes they would.
Something doesn't stop being a lie just because you can find the truth elsewhere.
I can't believe people are defending and refusing to take the money of a big corporation who doesn't give them a second thought
They ran an ad showing Killzone 3 and implied you could play it on your Vita via Remote Play, a feature that essentially never existed.
Haha that's some dedication.I won't use the 50 dollars even if I get the email, people need to stop blaming companies for them not doing research. If you are going to spend 300 dollars couldn't you take 30 minutes to see what you are actually buying?
I won't use the 50 dollars even if I get the email, people need to stop blaming companies for them not doing research. If you are going to spend 300 dollars couldn't you take 30 minutes to see what you are actually buying?
I disagree with the lawsuit so when I receive the email about the credit I will respectfully be declining.
I guess it's a fair victory, but as far as video game companies overhyping, this seems to be an unusually slim case to me. The way people read the features out of the ad seems wildly differing, and unlike a lot of these cases, the truth was out there. (And the idea that 3G was "oversold" as a feature, I feel like it was lack of interest on the consumer side as much as Sony's lack of toolkit investment that killed that. If 3G had been a major factor for Vita I'm sure Sony would have gotten behind it much more than it did, but there's a reason everybody literally groaned when AT&T was announced as the partner and already by the time of launch 3G was only a factor because people had to decide whether the extra $50 would ever pay off.)
Hard to say how this will go in the future. Maybe this will help keep companies honest, and maybe we'll see class-action suits about bullshots and dropped features taken seriously. Or maybe we'll see something like the patent troll flurry where suits rain for every slighted incident (which would serve some of these companies right, but some of the good companies could be caught up as victims, like if somebody proves that No Man's Sky would take less than 5 billion years to actually see every permutation, would that go to court?) It's a win for today, we'll see where things go from here.
But did they? I know they had the Remote Play tech demo at TGS 2011 that used Killzone, but those tech demos usually have that caveat about being just a tech demo. I don't recall it ever being "advertised" as a game that would actually launch such a feature (I got the feeling that they just never bothered finishing the hack work because K3 was a disappointment and attention already turned to KZ SF.) There were later PS3 games that came out with Remote Play compatibility, although that was a small quantity (and really, Sony almost never advertised it as a feature in a game itself, so you would never know unless you browsed a wiki; even when titles like Lair shipped and were compatible with PSP remote play, that was never on official specs.) It wasn't until PS4 when the potential was fulfilled. Even if some titles delivered on PS3, Killzone 3 was not one of them, but I'm still not sure where it was "advertised" as such (or who these Killzone 3 buyers were who were waiting for that feature, but that's another story...)
You guys realize Sony doesn't actually give a shit about you, right?
I'm taking the $50 psn card where do we fill out a form at?
I wonder what else they have lied about.
I wonder what else they have lied about.
Well they lied about that the vita is still doing fine and they're still focused on it. They're more focused on ps4.
That's not happening.
Everything, probably,.maybe
You can still be focused on something while being more focused on something else. That being said, SCEA has no idea what the Vita is. Other branches actually actually know it exists.
You guys realize Sony doesn't actually give a shit about you, right?
But did they? I know they had the Remote Play tech demo at TGS 2011 that used Killzone, but those tech demos usually have that caveat about being just a tech demo. I don't recall it ever being "advertised" as a game that would actually launch such a feature (I got the feeling that they just never bothered finishing the hack work because K3 was a disappointment and attention already turned to KZ SF.) There were later PS3 games that came out with Remote Play compatibility, although that was a small quantity (and really, Sony almost never advertised it as a feature in a game itself, so you would never know unless you browsed a wiki; even when titles like Lair shipped and were compatible with PSP remote play, that was never on official specs.) It wasn't until PS4 when the potential was fulfilled. Even if some titles delivered on PS3, Killzone 3 was not one of them, but I'm still not sure where it was "advertised" as such (or who these Killzone 3 buyers were who were waiting for that feature, but that's another story...)
Another year of PS+.
Was it a lie though? I saw the MLB ad cited, and by my definition of deceit, they're more guilty of ineffectively communicating the specifics of the Cross Play function than of literally (and I mean literally) telling consumers that any PS3 game can be carried out on the go.
Unintentional ambiguity is a result of a poorly produced ad.
The line between being ambiguous and deliberately misleading is a very thin one.
Was it a lie though? I saw the MLB ad cited, and by my definition of deceit, they're more guilty of ineffectively communicating the specifics of the Cross Play function than of literally (and I mean literally) telling consumers that any PS3 game can be carried out on the go.
Unintentional ambiguity is a result of a poorly produced ad.
The line between being ambiguous and deliberately misleading is a very thin one.
I can't believe people are defending and refusing to take the money of a big corporation who doesn't give them a second thought
Generally speaking since i've seen this being mentioned many times, i'm curious about what type of caring people are requesting, or what they find reasonable that should be done regarding caring in this case. I dont think anyone would argue against that the companies care about if the consumer is happy or unhappy with them. Afterall, companies exist soley because of their consumers (unless there is some goverment funding or something), so its clear that they care about their consumers in some way. So what type of level of caring beyond this are people thinking about?You guys realize Sony doesn't actually give a shit about you, right?
Generally speaking since i've seen this being mentioned many times, i'm curious about what type of caring people are requesting, or what they find reasonable that should be done regarding caring in this case. I dont think anyone would argue against that the companies care about if the consumer is happy or unhappy with them. Afterall, companies exist soley because of their consumers (unless there is some goverment funding or something), so its clear that they care about their consumers in some way. So what type of level of caring beyond this are people thinking about?
Sure, false advertising shouldnt happen of course, indeed. I was more generally speaking about the term. I've seen it being used several of times, also in situations where false advertising didnt happen. Doing false advertising will also lead to consumers being dissapointed, as we see in this case (otherwise the lawsuit wouldnt have happened).Caring enough to not deceive their potential consumers? You know, accepting basic law?