Dishonest Video Game Marketing.

[Drathnoxis]

So a number of years ago I picked up the God of War Saga collection. I read the box and thought, "well, 5 games in one is pretty good. I probably won't get another chance to play Chains of Olympus or Ghost of Sparta anyway."

Spoiler

Well today I opened the box and looked inside and thought "Hey! There's a disc for God of War 1&2 and another disc for God of War 3, but where's Chains of Olympus and Ghost of Sparta?"

Spoiler

wut. That can't be right. It CLEARLY says "INCLUDES: 5 FULL GAMES*"

Wait...

Spoiler

Great. Well even if I hadn't bought the game used, I wouldn't have been able to get them anyway becaaause:
(Story finished in next post because of image limit)

 

[Drathnoxis]

Spoiler

What a load of crap! This is basically a bait and switch! They tell you it includes 5 Full Games, not 3 full games and a voucher for 2 more. No amount of asterisks and microscopic text makes that okay!

Well, at least that crosses two FULL GAMES off of my backlog in one fell swoop.

Post other examples of dishonest video game marketing that tick you off!

Edit: I have the Uncharted: The Nathan Drake Collection, new and unopened because I don't have a PS4... Does anybody know if it actually comes with all 3 games? I only hear one disc rattling around :/

 

[Dalisclock]

Yeah, that's fucking stupid. Who the hell puts an expiration date on a game voucher that's part of a game you purchased?

Hell, it's a damn digital download so it's not like Sony is losing any money by just honoring the voucher.

What's amusing is I have the same collection, but I played the main games and never got around to even trying the PSP ones. I guess now I never will.

 

[NerfedFalcon]

I have the Nathan Drake Collection. Can confirm, it has all three games.

 

[Drathnoxis]

I have the Nathan Drake Collection. Can confirm, it has all three games.

Thanks. That's good. Now I feel the need to be suspicious and paranoid on a whole new level.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

I’d contact Sony. The games are still available as downloads AFAIK so they should honor the codes if you still have the receipt showing date of purchase. Or hell, even if you don’t it’s so long ago they might just say no biggie.

 

[CriticalGaming]

I don't really see the problem with this.

All advertisement and products have a shelf life of some sort.

You don't expect a fast food chain to honor an advertisement for a burger from 8 years ago that they may not even have the ingredients for anymore. Why would you expect advertising from a game that's 8 years old, on a system that has been discontinued for over 3 years, to still have honored vouchers within. That's just silly.

Besides you still got 3 games out of the deal, and how much did you pay for that in 2020? ten bucks?

Be reasonable.

Also there is clearly an asterisk on the big golden emblem, indicating that there are terms and conditions, and the download notice is in bold on the back of the box. There is no false or dishonest marketing here. It's all clearly written on the box.

 

[Dalisclock]

I don't really see the problem with this.

All advertisement and products have a shelf life of some sort.

You don't expect a fast food chain to honor an advertisement for a burger from 8 years ago that they may not even have the ingredients for anymore. Why would you expect advertising from a game that's 8 years old, on a system that has been discontinued for over 3 years, to still have honored vouchers within. That's just silly.

Besides you still got 3 games out of the deal, and how much did you pay for that in 2020? ten bucks?

Be reasonable.

Also there is clearly an asterisk on the big golden emblem, indicating that there are terms and conditions, and the download notice is in bold on the back of the box. There is no false or dishonest marketing here. It's all clearly written on the box.

Except the PS3 is still supported by PSN and you can still purchase PS3 games for download. Hell, you can even still purchase and download both Chains of Sparta and Ghosts of Olympus. https://store.playstation.com/en-us/grid/search-game/1?query=god of war
Drathnoxis isn't asking Sony to go into the basement and dig the original masters out of a filing cabinet, he's asking them to honor the deal presented in the game collection he purchased and those games are still available as a download on the PSN website. The fact there's an expiration date for a product that's still available is stupid.

If they offered it as part of the collection purchase and the games are still available for download, they should honor that.

 

[CriticalGaming]

Except the PS3 is still supported by PSN and you can still purchase PS3 games for download. Hell, you can even still purchase and download both Chains of Sparta and Ghosts of Olympus. https://store.playstation.com/en-us/grid/search-game/1?query=god of war
Drathnoxis isn't asking Sony to go into the basement and dig the original masters out of a filing cabinet, he's asking them to honor the deal presented in the game collection he purchased and those games are still available as a download on the PSN website. The fact there's an expiration date for a product that's still available is stupid.

If they offered it as part of the collection purchase and the games are still available for download, they should honor that.

But Sony doesn't promise those codes to everyone who buys the game used, and you can't be expected to be able to redeem downloadable content from a used game. Ever.

Unless the bought it new, which I would like to know where they found new ps3 games in 2020, but still all DLC has an expiration date and the dlc card even says that the terms and conditions are subject to change without notice.

Again I don't think this is dishonest marketing at all.

It isn't great marketing, but it isn't dishonest.

 

[Dalisclock]

But Sony doesn't promise those codes to everyone who buys the game used, and you can't be expected to be able to redeem downloadable content from a used game. Ever.

Unless the bought it new, which I would like to know where they found new ps3 games in 2020, but still all DLC has an expiration date and the dlc card even says that the terms and conditions are subject to change without notice.

The OP clearly stated he's had the game for a while now and I have the same collection, bought new. Not everyone plays a game just after they get it. God, I've got games I purchased a decade ago I've never booted up, because backlog.

And again, the question is, why does DLC have an expiration date if it's part of the package and the game is still available for download? It might be legal but it's still a dick move to say "Well, I know it says those two games are yours but hey, you didn't activate/download them 7 years ago so SOL!"

 

[CriticalGaming]

The OP clearly stated he's had the game for a while now and I have the same collection, bought new. Not everyone plays a game just after they get it. God, I've got games I purchased a decade ago I've never booted up, because backlog.

Again.....it's still not dishonest marketing. It's written on the box that there are downloaded aspects via a voucher.

They can be upset, that's fine. But there is nothing dishonest about the contents of the game.

Also if you have a decade worth's of backlogged games, then perhaps you should deal with the issue of excessive game purchasing you might have. I had a pretty heavy backlog but that was only like four games, they were just long.

Sony's customer service might still honor the codes if they have never been claimed by any psn account. However the OP does say they bought this collection used so those codes were likely not usable anyway.

 

[Dalisclock]

Also if you have a decade worth's of backlogged games, then perhaps you should deal with the issue of excessive game purchasing you might have. I had a pretty heavy backlog but that was only like four games, they were just long.

4 games is not a heavy backlog. 1000 games is a heavy backlog and it's not as uncommon as you'd think. Seriously, google "Game backlogs" and you'll fnd plenty of threads and articles about how to cut down and manage the damn things. People ain't writing those for shits and giggles.

Because life gets in the way, people have childern, jobs, familes and shit to deal with, and game releases NEVER SLOW DOWN(this current pandemic excepted). And when 30+ hour games is the norm(god forbid RPGS and open world game which want 50+ hours), trying keep up with them isn't remotely easy.

 

[CriticalGaming]

A voucher implies it will be honored. Otherwise it's basically an empty promise.

Only if not previously redeemed by the original purchaser. In the OP's case, he is out of luck most likely due to to the original owner claiming the codes.

 

[Drathnoxis]

Again.....it's still not dishonest marketing. It's written on the box that there are downloaded aspects via a voucher.

They can be upset, that's fine. But there is nothing dishonest about the contents of the game.

Also if you have a decade worth's of backlogged games, then perhaps you should deal with the issue of excessive game purchasing you might have. I had a pretty heavy backlog but that was only like four games, they were just long.

Sony's customer service might still honor the codes if they have never been claimed by any psn account. However the OP does say they bought this collection used so those codes were likely not usable anyway.

It very much is dishonest. They repeatedly claim that it includes "Five Full Games" all listed together. It lists all the games it "includes" on the back. It would have been trivial to say "Includes God of War®, God of War II, God of War III, and a voucher for online download of God of war Origins Collection..."

The fact that they separate that fact out to the microtext wherever they can, very much indicates that they are attempting to mislead anybody who doesn't notice the asterisk. Heck, there are people who cannot even read the microtext without a magnifying glass. Personally, I don't like downloadable games and I only got the thing in the first place because I took "includes" to mean that it was actually Included in the box! It never struck me to imagine that they might say that something was "included" when, in fact, it was only a voucher. To go back to your fast food analogy, it's like getting a combo meal that "includes" a burger, fries, and a drink, but when you open it, you only get a burger and fries, and you need to go to a completely different store to redeem the coupon to get your drink. It bloody well isn't "included" if it's not in the bag!

This isn't even accounting for the fact that it was a voucher with an expiration that was only valid for 7 months, as if this was a limited time special offer, and not a core part of the advertised product. This fact is not communicated AT ALL on the outside of the box. The only way to learn that it has an expiry date is to buy the thing and open it.

You and I have very different ideas about what honesty is.

 

[Drathnoxis]

Only if not previously redeemed by the original purchaser. In the OP's case, he is out of luck most likely due to to the original owner claiming the codes.

I don't know why you keep turning this back to me exclusively when Dalisclock has said multiple times that he himself bought the game NEW and is still screwed out the games he paid for because the voucher expired.

 

[CriticalGaming]

It very much is dishonest. They repeatedly claim that it includes "Five Full Games" all listed together. It lists all the games it "includes" on the back. It would have been trivial to say "Includes God of War®, God of War II, God of War III, and a voucher for online download of God of war Origins Collection..."

The fact that they separate that fact out to the microtext wherever they can, very much indicates that they are attempting to mislead anybody who doesn't notice the asterisk. Heck, there are people who cannot even read the microtext without a magnifying glass. Personally, I don't like downloadable games and I only got the thing in the first place because I took "includes" to mean that it was actually Included in the box! It never struck me to imagine that they might say that something was "included" when, in fact, it was only a voucher. To go back to your fast food analogy, it's like getting a combo meal that "includes" a burger, fries, and a drink, but when you open it, you only get a burger and fries, and you need to go to a completely different store to redeem the coupon to get your drink. It bloody well isn't "included" if it's not in the bag!

This isn't even accounting for the fact that it was a voucher with an expiration that was only valid for 7 months, as if this was a limited time special offer, and not a core part of the advertised product. This fact is not communicated AT ALL on the outside of the box. The only way to learn that it has an expiry date is to buy the thing and open it.

You and I have very different ideas about what honesty is.

Not noticing the footnote text, is not the same thing as it not being there. The packaging is clearly marked and nowhere on the box does it say that all five games are included on the disc. While the validity of the download codes do seem a bit short, that might be because of liscensing.

Either way, everything is fairly marked on the box. So.....

 

[Drathnoxis]

Not noticing the footnote text, is not the same thing as it not being there. The packaging is clearly marked and nowhere on the box does it say that all five games are included on the disc. While the validity of the download codes do seem a bit short, that might be because of liscensing.

Either way, everything is fairly marked on the box. So.....

In my opinion, there is nothing fair about footnotes that contradict the information contained in the main text or that attempt to obfuscate important information. The UK ASA and the Canadian Competition Bureau would seem to agree with me.

https://www.asa.org.uk/advice-online/smallprint-and-footnotes.html

The Help Note states that smallprint may be used to clarify, but not contradict, claims either in the headline or the body copy. Minor qualifications, especially those that are annotated clearly by, for example, use of an asterisk, are likely to be acceptable in footnotes but significant qualifications are not. Failure to state a minimum spend (Guernsey Colour Laboratories Ltd t/a Directfoto, 23 July 2003), compulsory charges (Telco Global Ltd, 1 March 2006), major personal or geographical restrictions (O2 (UK) Ltd, 16 June 2004) and the like is usually enough for the ASA to uphold complaints. Anything that is likely to significantly alter a reader’s understanding of the headline should be stated clearly (Tiscali UK Ltd, 18 February 2004).

https://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/03946.html

2.3.2 Second fundamental principle

The potential to mislead consumers increases significantly when a disclaimer is used to restrict, contradict or somehow negate the message to which it relates. If the main body of the advertisement creates a materially false or misleading general impression in itself, before any reference is made to a disclaimer, then fine print may not do much to alter the general impression in a way that ensures that consumers will not be misled.

An easy guide is to examine the disclaimed text alone. What is the plain meaning readers would ascribe to it? Is the fine print being used to protect the advertiser from the consequences of that meaning? If yes, then the fine print is being used to limit or contradict the general impression conveyed by the disclaimed text.
— 1990 Misleading Advertising Bulletin.

The text clearly states that the product includes 5 full games, but is then contradicted by the footnote which claims that it in fact only includes 3 games and 2 vouchers for online downloads of games. If they weren't trying to be dishonest and misleading this information would have been on the front of the box in plain text.

 

[CriticalGaming]

The text clearly states that the product includes 5 full games, but is then contradicted by the footnote which claims that it in fact only includes 3 games and 2 vouchers for online downloads of games. If they weren't trying to be dishonest and misleading this information would have been on the front of the box in plain text.

But not of the disc.

You know what.....I wish you the best of luck contacting Sony to get your voucher redeemed. Maybe you'll get lucky.

Also your legal claim does cover them with the explaination of using an Asterisk. The *'s do provide an supplimental explaination to the user that a download would be required for a portion of the content, in this case the psp games. Sony has lawyers upon lawyers, and this product had no legal issues that i could find online, so I think they covered themselves enough.

You can call it deceiving, but it isn't. Again, nowhere on that package does it state that all 5 games are on the disc. Therefore there is no obligation for all 5 games to be covered for an indefinite period of time.