From Software responds to Dark Souls II graphics downgrade concerns

Well, I'm not surprised by From's answer. They can't say anything else, really. They can't directly answer the complaint about false advertising, and they won't: they won't say anything which may be used against them. So, they say nothing about the issue, plain and simple.

Really, this whole issue really lacks a legal point of view (because this is what is important here). Surely there are among GAF players who studied common-law and who could give us some legal input about this, and who could explain to others what is wrong here.

A lot of people here seems to forget that they are not just players: they are consumers. They have rights. And there are laws which protect these rights. It isn't a matter of accepting passively every bullshit publishers/developpers pull on us. You have an incidence on how the videogame industry and its market evolve. I would even dare to say that it is our responsability to speak up and make sure such stunts (ie. the false advertising) don't happen in the future.
 
That's the whole point. Publishers should stop lying to their customers through fake trailers/presentations/misleading previews.

I hope this year's E3 people are especially careful and willing to call out fake shit they see during the presentations.

The E3 and TGS demos look the same to me.

Clearly it does seem like the lighting will be changed overall (i wonder if this is backpedaling of the torch mechanic from testing) but everything else that shines in the demo (effects, textures, etc) should be present in the PC version ....

Should be...
 
Hmm. I don't think anyone has an issue with changes being made in order to make the game as good as it can be. It's the marketing and the lack of transparency about these changes that was a problem.

Yeah, a clear answer is all I really wanted, personally. I mean, it would've been great to have that torch mechanic with the cool lighting effects.. but I'm still having an insane amount of fun with the game, as-is.
 
No game developer is a public servant. The game they produced is a fantastic game; with some technical issues. You can choose to buy or not. Nothing is "owed" to anyone. They people working on this game have been paid during the development cycle. We don't pay them. Game Developers are not government workers. We don't elect people into Game Studio positions, they aren't paid with tax money.

Am I disappointed that the game doesn't look as amazing as the very first gameplay reveal? Yeah, a little. But the fact that it's a fantastic gameplay experience helps me to not dwell on that and go hollow over it. But it's par the fucking course in this industry.

It's not corporate apologist bullshit, as you put it. It's called being reasonable.

Fortunately for consumers, that's not true.
 
They can't directly answer the complaint about false advertising, and they won't: they won't say anything which may be used against them. So, they say nothing about the issue, plain and simple.

You... seriously think that the possibility of legal repercussions has crossed the minds of anyone at From and that informed how they responded? Have fun waiting for that landmark From v. AngryGAF trial over changes in a game's graphics during development, hahahahah. Ridiculous
 
then without the downgrade it would play at 5ps, no?

Well there were Demo units available at TGS with PS3s in front of them, with great performance and the same level of effects and fidelity as the PC Trailer.

Then the console version releases with neutered graphical effects and performance problems.

Something is a little fishy here. Not too far of a leap to justify Bandai was using the PC version at these events with DS3 button prompts.
 
You... seriously think that the possibility of legal repercussions have crossed the minds of anyone at From and that informed how they responded? Have fun waiting for that landmark From v. AngryGAF trial over changes in a game's graphics during development, hahahahah. Ridiculous

You seriously think it didn't cross their mind? Please. There is a legitimate issue here. And, don't worry, they have plenty of lawyers (or at least have people with enough legal knowledge in how commercial and consumers laws work) helping them on that matter. They can't take the risk to let this thing spiral out of control with misplaced words. You can't expect to run a business without some basic legal knowledge on what can be and what can't be done.

It's really saddening to read how willfully ignorant some people are.
 
You... seriously think that the possibility of legal repercussions has crossed the minds of anyone at From and that informed how they responded? Have fun waiting for that landmark From v. AngryGAF trial over changes in a game's graphics during development, hahahahah. Ridiculous
You seem like a very uninformed gentleman. Or gentlewoman. Either way, you should understand that there is such a thing as false advertising, and that is a punishable offense by the court of law. I am sure none of us will build a lawsuit out of this, but I always put consumer rights first.
 
You seriously think it didn't cross their mind? Please. There is a legitimate issue here. And, don't worry, they have plenty of lawyers (or at least have people with enough legal knowledge in how commercial and consumers laws work) helping them on that matter. They can't take the risk to let this thing spiral out of control with misplaced words. You can't expect to run a business without some basic legal knowledge on what can be and what can't be done.

It's really saddening to read how willfully ignorant some people are.

While I agree that their words are parsed specifically, I do not believe there is a legitimate legal issue here. It's a bit naive to think that something like this could actually ever go to court.. UNLESS From Software says something extremely dumb.
 
Well there were Demo units available at TGS with PS3s in front of them, with great performance and the same level of effects and fidelity as the PC Trailer.

Then the console version releases with neutered graphical effects and performance problems.

Something is a little fishy here. Not too far of a leap to justify Bandai was using the PC version at these events with DS3 button prompts.

Thats the theory I am leaning on

The build is just to similar
 
The GB crew and Dave Lang had a bit of a discussion on this during the latest Bombcast and their understanding that no dev team would willing try to deceive their audience because trying to motivate a group of people to work on something that they know will be deceptive is hard to do. Their conclusion was that the dev team was most likely unable to keep their new lighting tech in while trying to maintain the frame rate. While its a bummer to see the lighting not look as good in the main game, I'm still giving From the benefit of the doubt that they just couldn't get it in the retail release and were not trying to be deceptive

Right, because Aliens: Colonial Marines never happened, right?
 
Well there were Demo units available at TGS with PS3s in front of them, with great performance and the same level of effects and fidelity as the PC Trailer.

Then the console version releases with neutered graphical effects and performance problems.

Something is a little fishy here. Not too far of a leap to justify Bandai was using the PC version at these events with DS3 button prompts.

Correct me if i'm wrong but rendering a demo with a small area runs much better than rendering a whole in-game world, right?
 
They haven't picked my pocket yet personally (was planning to check out the PC version), but whether From themselves are responsible for misleading media leading right up to the release or no, their image is certainly affected in my mind.

Personally more concerned about the statements I've heard that the overall design isn't up to the standard set by the previous game. Dark Souls' level design with all the great interconnecting areas and shortcuts was one of my favorite aspects of the game. If that's suffered as well, it far outweighs my disappointment with the lighting.
 
Right, because Aliens: Colonial Marines never happened, right?

Actually that fake demo and the real game were developed by two different companies so your rebuttal does not actually apply to his statement. Also from the various accounts that have come out all parties related to that game were very frustrated and dissatisfied.
 
Correct me if i'm wrong but rendering a demo with a small area runs much better than rendering a whole in-game world, right?

Its not unfeasable to think that it was actually running a small instance of the game on PS3 i guess.

This would definitely be more shady if they never specified either way... Then again I can't think of any demo where they specified anything unless someone is claiming otherwise.
 
While I agree that their words are parsed specifically, I do not believe there is a legitimate legal issue here. It's a bit naive to think that something like this could actually ever go to court.. UNLESS From Software says something extremely dumb.

I beg to differ. There are enough evidence to support the claim that people were deceived about the product, and that people who pre-ordered the game and based their decision on the videos and screenshots shown before the release were wronged.
The question is not if it could go to court. The question would be "Is there enough evidence to convince the judges that FROM/Namco deceived people and that what they did could be qualified as false advertising?".
Though I do admit that I'm not familiar enough with common-law (I am however, familiar with french law, which I studied for a few years), hence why I would like to hear the opinion of someone with actual legal knowledge on that matter. I'm really interested to learn what common-law says for such matter.
 
So much balance. Hinting at an Xbox One release?

Honestly, I've gotten over the downgrade at this point. I've been playing it on the PS3 and even at 720p with a shitty framerate, there are still some areas that look good. Most importantly, the game is fucking awesome. I can't hate on it after having such a good time.

Either way, I hope the PC version retains some of the previous graphical quality. I don't expect that geometry to be as good as before, but I would love more dynamic lighting and better texture resolution at least. I've got it pre-ordered and can't wait to play through it again on the PC with, at the very least, much improved resolution and frame rate.
 
While this is such a lame response, I'm reading it as specific to development for last gen release. Meaning, I think PC will be what was originally shown. At least that's what I want to believe. Still, nothing lame than a cliche response from a template.
 
Am I really the only one who had seen the several screenshot threads we had on here? I linked to them in this thread earlier. The newest ones especially were pretty much entirely 'wow this is ugly' sorts of responses.

Now, things may have been downgraded even *further*, I'm in no place to say, and obviously there's other material from farther back that looks better, but I think the signs *were* there that things weren't all rosy on the graphical front.

You're completely right about this, but I also remember that some people defended it saying "From can't take screenshots" (which is true, the game still looks better than those awful shots), and pointing out that actual gameplay videos looked much better, so even though there was evidence, it wasn't clear enough.
 
You seem like a very uninformed gentleman. Or gentlewoman. Either way, you should understand that there is such a thing as false advertising, and that is a punishable offense by the court of law. I am sure none of us will build a lawsuit out of this, but I always put consumer rights first.

I've been trying - and thus far unsuccessful - to verify exactly what the law is with regards to demonstrating a product that is explicitly stated to be unfinished as yet; whether that's regarded as an advertisment from a legal POV and whether the claims made in such a demonstration are regarded as binding.
 
I beg to differ. There are enough evidence to support the claim that people were deceived about the product, and that people who pre-ordered the game and based their decision on the videos and screenshots shown before the release were wronged.
The question is not if it could go to court. The question would be "Is there enough evidence to convince the judges that FROM/Namco deceived people and that what they did could be qualified as false advertising?".
Though I do admit that I'm not familiar enough with common-law (I am however, familiar with french law, which I studied for a few years), hence why I would like to hear the opinion of someone with actual legal knowledge on that matter. I'm really interested to learn what common-law says for such matter.

There is a legal precedent. It happened to Alien:CM.
 
Not sure whst people expected them to say. It was obvious they did what they needed to to keep the game playable. Also knew they weren't gonna touch on the advertising showing PC footage.
 
Zero fucks given by them it seems.

Oh well, they won't have my money.

This. If the pc version isn't very close to what they've shown before, that's one less sale from me. I won't support blatant deception like this (now followed by this arrogant response that doesn't even address their shady behavior and misses the point entirely).
 
Damn, you people do my head in, seriously. It's like they've purposefully screwed you over.. how about you get it into your small heads that graphical fidelity is one part of the whole package, and in Dark Souls II's case, that package is really quite very good.

So they have to remove a few effects, that were demonstrated months ago.. but do you know what, that probably gave us some extra FPS here, some new mechanics there or a release date that isn't months down the line. As was said in the press release, Software development, whether it be games, or any other piece of software is the art of balancing the resources you've been given, and I think FROM needs to be praised for delivering to us (time and again) something that is truly special, not vindicated because a bunch of 'backseat devs' want their fancy effects back.
 
If you look at the evidence presented, From wasn't lying when they said that the PC version was the lead platform and the engine was designed for PC/next-gen.
It would seem that the previous-gen consoles are just an afterthought. That would line up with business-sense, as any investment in last-gen compatibility will be a throwaway investment going forward.

From just needs the extra ~6 weeks to finalize the lighting and features that were cut last-minute from those versions. Again, with business motivation, would work play in Bandai's favor to maximize profit potential as well.


Grief stop giving us hope

Pls ;_;
 
Man, this thing I purchased doesn't look as advertised! I'm gonna be mad as hell about it!

B4ZIOsD.png


This literally happens in all marketing. Yes, it's annoying. Yes, it's kinda shady. No, nobody owes anyone an explanation. I support anyone that's outraged enough by this to not pay for the product. It's the only way they'll actually care, so good on you.
 
I don't think it's at all arguable that it was changed for the worse.

The real question is if they plan to give us the originally shown version in any form. They certainly have the capability with the PC, but it would not at all shock me if they did another "Aw shucks, we don't know how PCs work, so this is the console game with resolution options" thing again and then usual suspects would point to that as "LOOK AT WHAT YOU'RE DOING TO POOR FROM."
 
Wow that an awful replay from them.

I just lost all respect I had for From, they sound extremely arrogance and just don't care about the deceptive they were pulling on their fans and all other people. what a horrible company.


The GB crew and Dave Lang had a bit of a discussion on this during the latest Bombcast and their understanding that no dev team would willing try to deceive their audience because trying to motivate a group of people to work on something that they know will be deceptive is hard to do. Their conclusion was that the dev team was most likely unable to keep their new lighting tech in while trying to maintain the frame rate. While its a bummer to see the lighting not look as good in the main game, I'm still giving From the benefit of the doubt that they just couldn't get it in the retail release and were not trying to be deceptive

after reading Brad and Pat defending this misleading bullshit and calling people crazy I'll never listen to GB opinion on any related Souls or From game ever again.
 
Man, this thing I purchased doesn't look as advertised! I'm gonna be mad as hell about it!

B4ZIOsD.png


This literally happens in all marketing. Yes, it's annoying. Yes, it's kinda shady. No, nobody owes anyone an explanation. I support anyone that's outraged enough by this to not pay for the product. It's the only way they'll actually care, so good on you.

This might be the worst analogy ever used throughout the history of mankind.
 
Ok, just what the fuck happened here?

10 minutes ago I linked an nbcnews.com article about SEGA getting sued for their false advertising practices with Alien: Colonial Marines and now the link has "expired" ?

I'll copy-paste the entire article (thank you Google cache):
Fans sue over 'Aliens' game that bears 'little resemblance' to its preview


Yannick LeJacq NBC News contributor
May 2, 2013 at 6:59 PM ET

Aliens: Colonial Marines / Gearbox Software
The controversial "Aliens: Colonial Marines" is now at the center of a class-action lawsuit filed against Sega and Gearbox Software for falsely advertising the game.
Angry over a game that "bore little resemblance" to the so-called "actual gameplay" shown in previews, indignant purchasers of the widely panned "Aliens: Colonial Marines" may get their day in court.

Edelson LLC, a law firm, has filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of customers who pre-ordered or purchased the game on launch day, alleging that Sega and Gearbox Software — the publisher and developer of the "Aliens" title, respectively — falsely advertised the game.

"There were promises that Sega and Gearbox made about what the game was going to look like," Ben Thomassen, a lawyer for Edelson, told NBC News. "Promotional material of 'Aliens: Colonial Marines' was shown at several game conferences and expositions, and continued to be shown up until the game's release."

"When people viewed these kinds of things, they thought they knew what they were buying," Thomassen said. "These were promises about what the game was going to look like."

The suit, filed April 29 in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, cites a number of different promotional events for "Aliens" put on by Sega and Gearbox at major industry trade shows and events like PAX and E3, saying that they did not accurately represent the final product gamers eventually received. Gearbox co-founder Randy Pitchford himself allegedly described these promotional materials as "actual gameplay," the suit says.

The shipped "Aliens" was criticized by many reviewers for being markedly different from the promoted version, with weaker graphics and artificial intelligence.

"Each of the 'actual gameplay' demonstrations purported to show consumers exactly what they would be buying: a cutting edge video game with very specific features and qualities," Edelson's complaint stated. "Unfortunately for their fans, Defendants never told anyone — consumers, industry critics, reviewers or reporters — that their 'actual gameplay' demonstration advertising campaign bore little resemblance to the retail product that would eventually be sold to a large community of unwitting purchasers."

Additionally, the suit claims that Sega and Gearbox's use of embargo agreements with the media left customers with no other outlet for information about "Aliens: Colonial Marines" besides the inaccurate promotional material. Game critics were originally given review codes under embargo until Feb. 12 — the same day the game first became available to the general public. When the actual "Aliens: Colonial Marines" game was reviewed, it received dismal scores across the board — averaging a score well below 50 percent on the review aggregation site Metacritic.

The discrepancy between the early praise for "Aliens" and the weak final product has caused an outcry from members of the gaming press, who felt like unwitting accomplices in the alleged sham. Stephen Totilo, the editor-in-chief of the popular gaming site Kotaku, responded to the controversy with a post titled, “Apologies If We Wasted Your Time With That Preview.” Destructoid followed up on its review with an article saying, "We've been lied to by Randy Pitchford and Gearbox. We passed those lies onto the consumers."

When Pitchford himself was asked on Twitter for an explanation of why the game differs from the demo, the Gearbox co-founder replied, "That is understood and fair and we are looking at that. Lots of info to parse, lots of stake holders to respect." This public acknowledgment of the matter was noted in Edelson's filing.

Attorney Thomassen told NBC News he could see how the gaming press might have unwittingly participated in what Destructoid's Jim Sterling called "one great big lie."

"In this case, you can directly see that [the media] embargo had a real effect on people who purchased the game," Thomassen said.

But Thomassen added that the game industry, like any other consumer-facing industry, is legally obligated to provide its customers with accurate information — a standard that may have been irregularly applied to game companies in the past since the industry itself is still in its relative infancy.

"If you can't take their word for it, then whose should you be taking?" Thomassen said of Sega and Gearbox. "As the industry becomes more and more mainstream, hopefully people will come to expect a little more forthrightness."

Representatives for Sega and Gearbox did not respond to requests for comment on this story. We will update the story when we hear back from them.

Thomassen said for now, the case will proceed "as a normal putative class-action lawsuit." While he noted that it is "hard to predict an outcome" so early in a case's proceedings, when asked what Edelson hoped for as an ideal outcome, he said, "at this point we do think some sort of refund is appropriate."

This is hardly the first time that gamers have rallied together to take a game company to task for under delivering. Furor over the ending to "Mass Effect 3" caused developer BioWare to ultimately change the game's final cut-scenes. Activision Blizzard has faced ongoing legal problems with "Diablo 3" ever since the game was originally released with its controversial always-online requirement. And Edelson itself even took action against Electronic Arts in 2011 after gamers playing the PlayStation 3 version of "Battlefield 3" didn't receive copies of "Battlefield 1942" they were promised — a case that was resolved "not terribly long after EA announced that they would give players the copy of Battlefield 1943," Thomassen said.

Update 5/3: A representative from Gearbox released the following statement today:

Attempting to wring a class action lawsuit out of a demonstration is beyond meritless. We continue to support the game, and will defend the rights of entertainers to share their works-in-progress without fear of frivolous litigation.


In a statement given to several gaming sites such as Kotaku and Polygon, SEGA had this to say:

SEGA cannot comment on specifics of ongoing litigation, but we are confident that the lawsuit is without merit and we will defend it vigorously.
 
I've been trying - and thus far unsuccessful - to verify exactly what the law is with regards to demonstrating a product that is explicitly stated to be unfinished as yet; whether that's regarded as an advertisment from a legal POV and whether the claims made in such a demonstration are regarded as binding.
Yeah, I'm uneducated at exact legal conditions so I tried asking around (not lawyers, but devs who've at least worked on some console projects or in slightly bigger companies), but the general response was that there was no legal issue with the game trailers of today (including DS2) due to them not having to be unedited direct feed footage unless you're explicitly stating that this footage is directly captured from source and is 100% accurate representation of the game. That's not to said it's really fair, but as far as legal things goes, there will most likely be no consequences.
 
Let's get this started again and try to get some information for the PC version of Dark Souls II!

Either retweet this, or create your own. Publishers thrive on our ignorance, lets team up to try to shed some light on this upcoming release.

https://twitter.com/Grief_exe/status/446344154788806656

H0i9LTG.png


If you are not aware, the PC Trailer shown at TGS has the exact same textures/geometry as the retail console build, but amazing lighting and graphical effects not present. There are some minor geometry differences between the two versions, but the majority of assets are the exact same.
Some screenshots from this area would give us some definitive information to work with.

http://www.gamersyde.com/stream_dark_souls_ii_tgs_trailer-30829_en.html

idQf74JSP5NiF.jpg
 
This might be the worst analogy ever used throughout the history of mankind.

How so? Visual presentation is incredibly important for both things, theoretically. I've heard plenty of people turn down food because it looks unappealing. Neither one of these products in this case are vital to your continued existence as well. Fast food is as much a commodity as video games.
 
Hehehe. That's a great PR response.

And another one of these beautiful threads where you guys keep going around in circles.
This thread and the one before has it all.
Our hopes, dreams, doubts. Optimism, pessimism.
People who don't know what they are talking about but pretend that they do, people who actually know what they are talking about.
Probably some Kameo pictures soon (if not already?!).


This thread delivers, AA++ will visit again.
 
Ok, just what the fuck happened here?

10 minutes ago I linked an nbcnews.com article about SEGA getting sued for their false advertising practices with Alien: Colonial Marines and now the link has "expired" ?

I'll copy-paste the entire article (thank you Google cache):


Last month a girl sued her parents cause she thought they owed them college tuition.

Lawsuits don't prove anything. We live in an overly litigious society and most of this bullshit gets thrown out. So will this.
 
Ok, just what the fuck happened here?

10 minutes ago I linked an nbcnews.com article about SEGA getting sued for their false advertising practices with Alien: Colonial Marines and now the link has "expired" ?

I'll copy-paste the entire article (thank you Google cache):

Gosh. I never heard about this (at least, not in details). Didn't know it went to court. Thank you very much for this info!
 
How so? Visual presentation is incredibly important for both things, theoretically. I've heard plenty of people turn down food because it looks unappealing. Neither one of these products in this case are vital to your continued existence as well. Fast food is as much a commodity as video games.

Burgers are cheap, games aren't.
 
How so? Visual presentation is incredibly important for both things, theoretically. I've heard plenty of people turn down food because it looks unappealing. Neither one of these products in this case are vital to your continued existence as well. Fast food is as much a commodity as video games.

FTC comments on fast food stating that as long as all of the ingredients are present and the food was originally made the same way, food styling doesn't matter in large part because it's an extremely cheap commodity and it requires little to no analysis to distinguish between reality and photography.
 
Fortunately for consumers, that's not true.

That'd work if they didn't show footage, and screenshots which were representative of the retail version of the game. Which they have done since late December, early January at least.

Look at any of the videos of gameplay on the Forest of Fallen Giants. It's EXACTLY like the retail version of the game. All of this argument hinges on heresay that the TGS was using PS3 hardware. Because of that the whole argument is flawed, as I see it, since it's cherry-picking which evidence to use. Footage that's almost a year old at this point (TGS), or more recent footage (Press Preview B-Roll Footage).
 
Top Bottom