Mass Effect 3 - Advertising Standards Agency Complaint Not Upheld

It reads different from unrealistic situations as provided in commercials.



Does it read as unrealistic as the examples in commercials?

I could think before playing the game that indeed the presence can have huge consequences. It is plausible. After playing the game, it has consequences.

And there are other examples taken from the page. They can not be sumed up to the usual pattern of exageration brought in by marketing.

Originally Posted by rossrjensen
Drinking Coka-Cola is not going to make you a supermodel,

Sure, hype is hype. But if the VP of Coca-Cola starts giving out interviews saying his drink is "exceptionally rich in Vitamin C", and in fact it has only trace amounts, I'd expect some reaction.

In any case, as RPG fans it would be good for us if a developer was sanctioned for not providing satisfying consequences for choices? What the ASA has said is that illusory C&C is fine. As long as the consequences are played through different colored lens filters, it's A-OK.

Would it not have been a better result for us if they had said "no, you had three games' worth of choices, and you promised they'd play out (not "A, B, C") and they didn't really"?

Originally Posted by JDR13
It's a good thing this wasn't upheld. Otherwise we might have idiots coming out of the woodwork to file a complaint every time something doesn't end up being exactly what they expected.

Or it might have led developers to actually be a bit more truthful about the product they're trying to sell you. BioWare went out of the way to say things that had not the slightest thing in common with what was already in late alpha. The marketing was borderline normal hype, the interviews were outright lies.

Well unfortunately there's no law against slinging bullshit in interviews.

I don't know about it being "outright lies" since I haven't played ME3 yet, but an interview is not official advertising. I'm also pretty sure Bioware has learned a lesson from this debacle, and that all the public backlash they're receiving is already having a significant effect on the way they'll do things in the future.

So if a game developer promises a game is "fun" and you play it and its not fun for you should you be able to sue them?

Did anybody stop and wonder if maybe ME3 just wasn't that awesome?

Originally Posted by JDR13
Well unfortunately there's no law against slinging bullshit in interviews.

I don't know about it being "outright lies" since I haven't played ME3 yet, but an interview is not official advertising. I'm also pretty sure Bioware has learned a lesson from this debacle, and that all the public backlash they're receiving is already having a significant effect on the way they'll do things in the future.

You mean they'll do more of the same as a result of all the free coverage they're getting?

Originally Posted by kalniel
You mean they'll do more of the same as a result of all the free coverage they're getting?

You're joking.. right?

Originally Posted by JDR13
You're joking.. right?

Not at all. Most companies would kill to have their game still appear in the news. Bioware/EA have been very clever with Mass Effect marketing through the series really. Remember the furore over a flash of blue alien boob when far worse existed before and since? Genius.

Ok.. If that's what you choose to believe.

I don't believe that "any" publicity is always beneficial to a company. The publicity in regards to ME's endings was overwhelmingly negative. I lost count of how many people I saw state that they're never purchasing another Bioware game, and they weren't all people who had actually played ME3.

he's absolutely right - its ironic that the failure of DO2 lead to a massive amount of free publicity for ME3. Dhruin's first thread on this game blamed decent folks for complaining about the perverted themes in it, when in fact its the first issue that was the problem. The complaints existed from day 1 and likely very few people finished that the game that soon - yet the internet was abuzz. The endings were just a convenient excuse that fell on their lap.

Do we still think its a mistake that Bethesda bought the rights to the name Fallout? There are and were multiple post-apocalyptic games that launched that no one talks about now.

Originally Posted by JDR13
I lost count of how many people I saw state that they're never purchasing another Bioware game

Oh please, that's like a badge of honour for a game dev these days. In fact, if you don't have a couple of hundred people say that on various forums as soon as a game is released then you need to be worried.

Originally Posted by Lucky Day
he's absolutely right - its ironic that the failure of DO2 lead to a massive amount of free publicity for ME3. Dhruin's first thread on this game blamed decent folks for complaining about the perverted themes in it, when in fact its the first issue that was the problem. The complaints existed from day 1 and likely very few people finished that the game that soon - yet the internet was abuzz. The endings were just a convenient excuse that fell on their lap.

Do we still think its a mistake that Bethesda bought the rights to the name Fallout? There are and were multiple post-apocalyptic games that launched that no one talks about now.

I didn't understand your post but I'd like to note I didn't blame anyone. What's "DO2"? What specifically is the "first issue" that was actually the problem?

The DA2 sales were lackluster, especially compared to DA:O. So much for "all publicity is good publicity".

As what comes to advertising, there's legally a world of difference between overblown hype and promises of specific features. If you'd advertise a car with a list of features that don't exist, your advertising is illegal. You can't promise specific things in advertising that you aren't going to deliver. ME3 falls in the gray area. The devs did specifically promise there will not be an "a, b or c ending" which is exactly what it did have, but dev interviews don't (probably) specifically count as advertising.

Devs spewing their mouths off promising non-existing things in interviews is hardly a new thing, and I hope this will make a bit of chance.

Originally Posted by Dhruin
I didn't understand your post but I'd like to note I didn't blame anyone. What's "DO2"? What specifically is the "first issue" that was actually the problem?

DO2 = Dragon Age 2 - that was a typo. "First Issue" was a poorly worded reference to DA2. I was saying the complaints on metacritic and Amazon, etc. that happened those first days had more to do with DA2 it seemed to me and that the ending controversy became a convenient justification.

I apologize for saying you blamed someone - I found the thread and you didn't actually do that. My memory slipped but regardless, if I had an issue I should have brought it up back then. send me a PM if you want to continue this discussion.

Lucky Day, I'm sure you're right - there is more to the strength of the fan reaction than one anti-climactic, 'phoned in' ending.

Reading the BioWare forums, it seemed that while a lot of people were mad at the developer for turning Dragon Age towards the console-action teens, they absolutely needed to buy ME3 because they'd 'invested' too many hours in Shepard not to see his story through. When they found that ME3 didn't actually give any sort of satisfying closure, a double whammy effect kicked in.

This is sad to watch - BioWare leadership needs to address the fact that it is at war with a large part of its traditional customer base, and state what lessons it has taken away from its forays into 'accessibility' and 'button awesomeness'. Where is this company even going now? It seems like the doctors have just stuck their heads in the sand while firing $40k pa devs whose only crime was to have followed failed management strategies.

Originally Posted by Raggie
, but dev interviews don't (probably) specifically count as advertising.

That's letting the most credible people cash on their credibility. When, one month before release, you read, watch or listen to a lead developper, a project manager list the features supposed to be in the game during a show case, a promotional event, you tend to believe them more than some other sources.

They are the best pick to cash on lies because they know the content of the game, contrary to some PR employee.

Originally Posted by ChienAboyeur
That's letting the most credible people cash on their credibility. When, one month before release, you read, watch or listen to a lead developper, a project manager list the features supposed to be in the game during a show case, a promotional event, you tend to believe them more than some other sources.

They are the best pick to cash on lies because they know the content of the game, contrary to some PR employee.

I was thinking from a legal standpoint. But even if devs lying in interviews isn't legally false advertising, it's IMO an industry practice I'd rather see gone. I think it's casually done because people can get away with it. It's a cheap way to increase sales with little risk. I don't understand why we should just accept it because it's a common practice, and I'm only glad if devs are being forced to see it as a poor tactic.

But they're not even lying. There is only a difference of opinion about the extent of something, which is why the complain wasn't upheld.

Originally Posted by Raggie
I was thinking from a legal standpoint. But even if devs lying in interviews isn't legally false advertising, it's IMO an industry practice I'd rather see gone. I think it's casually done because people can get away with it. It's a cheap way to increase sales with little risk. I don't understand why we should just accept it because it's a common practice, and I'm only glad if devs are being forced to see it as a poor tactic.

I saw the point. My point was that the regulation is exerted on people with lower credibility than developpers while developpers can tell anything they want.

Marketing people can lie in good faith as they do not always know perfectly the project or are transmitted features that are supposed to be in the game but are later removed.

Developpers have their hands in the project, they know the content and therefore their credibility is much stronger.

What the use of regulating people with the smaller credibility when you let people who enjoy the stronger credibility and therefore are the most likely to profit for an efficient lie? Non sense.

Originally Posted by kalniel
But they're not even lying. There is only a difference of opinion about the extent of something, which is why the complain wasn't upheld.

The difference of opinion is internal then for certain points. Because as the developpers came with a point system to quantify the importance of allied support, they gave their own opinion on what they think is huge or is not.

The complaint was not upheld because it is one strong economic sector and that considering the widespread of the method, they can not be punished. This would only lead to more unemployed people etc