Slashdot Mirror
No Man's Sky's Steam Page Didn't Mislead Gamers, Rules UK Ad Watchdog (arstechnica.com)
Shortly after it officially launched in August on PlayStation and Windows, No Man's Sky -- the game that sees the protagonist explore space and experience uncertain places -- was accused of false advertising. Players felt that the pictures and videos used to promote the game on its Steam page didn't represent the sort of things players might expect to encounter in the game. Today, a UK advertising regulator has ruled the opposite -- the game didn't mislead gamers. Ars Technica reports: The complainants -- who had been part of a semi-organized campaign upset with the state of the game at release -- insisted that the screenshots on the storefront had seemed to promise various features that turned out to be absent from the final game. These included things like the appearance and behavior of animals, large in-game buildings, large-scale space combat, loading screens, a promised system wherein the different factions contested galactic territory, and general graphical polish. Hello Games' defense rested on the fact that No Man's Sky is procedurally generated, and that while players would not enjoy the exact experience shown in promotional images, they could reasonably expect to see similar things. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) agreed, saying: "The summary description of the game made clear that it was procedurally generated, that the game universe was essentially infinite, and that the core premise was exploration. As such, we considered consumers would understand the images and videos to be representative of the type of content they would encounter during gameplay, but would not generally expect to see those specific creatures, landscapes, battles, and structures." It also ruled that the developers hadn't misled customers over graphics: "We understood the graphical output of the game would be affected by the specifications of each player's computer, and considered that consumers would generally be aware of this limitation."
It's an industry body, not a governmental one. It has its power basically from a perpetual threat that if the industry doesn't regulate itself the government will legislate, and nobody wants that to happen.
If this is what you call self regulation then it's garbage.
It's like saying VW emissions are perfect. Look that car is off and I'm measuring zero. Or BP's an environmentally friendly company, their logo is green and the poster on the wall shows people hugging trees.
Focusing on the Steam page is a load of utter shit from a company which most definitely grossly mislead people, and frankly a good chunk of the customers probably didn't even look at the Steam page when buying based on the previous stories from the developer's mouths.
If a game with such an unprecedented return rate didn't "mislead" consumers then maybe they should have given the job to someone with eyes and a functioning braincell.
Stop buying shit before you know how good (or bad) it is.
You are perpetuating shitty over-hyped products that flop once people actually get their hands on them.
If you didn't part with your money until it was released, reviewed, tested, a handful of brave souls had tried it out, etc. then companies would have to put out decent products first time rather than rely on pre-release hype to sell enough that they don't have to care that it's a turd they're selling.
It's not even a new thing, this sort of shit was happening long before Duke Nukem Forever and people STILL KEEP BUYING SHIT.
Buy a game after it's been out for a year, and you know whether or not you want it. It'll be cheaper, you'll buy half the amount of games you actually do, they'll be much better quality on average and - best of all - after the first year you won't give a shit about "missing out" because year-old games will still be "new" to you.
That 'too much government regulation is bad' is true does not mean that government regulation is bad.
If government regulation is applied and ends up doing the "exact opposite" of what was intended, then the only solution is not "ever increasing and Draconian modifications".
On the other hand, THIS IS A FUCKING VIDEO GAME why the FUCK do we need government involved?
It's strange. I would think that one of the few places where government unarguably has a role is in mediating the interaction of individuals, especially with respect to trade. Whether or not that's for something you think is important, or just "A FUCKING VIDEO GAME".
A company produced and sold a product that a considerable number of those who purchased it found to be substantially different to what they thought they were buying. Maybe some jumped on the bandwagon. Maybe some fooled themselves. That happens with a lot of games. This was on a different scale.
Industry self-regulation has failed to prevent this and in failing to punish it has increased the chance of it happening again. Fail for self-regulation. I'm not sure how _less_ regulation, as you seem to think more appropriate, is going to help. Bad or excessive government regulation may make things worse, but there are alternatives to 'bad' and 'excessive' despite your implication to the contrary.
Oh, and to tun your argument on it's head - THIS IS [THE] FUCKING VIDEO GAME [INDUSTRY], if it's so meaningless/trivial, why are you involved?