Early Access Title Removed From Steam

[Jarhead0331]

So how does the law, steam, or the community determine what is false advertising or a false claim, particularly in a game that is currently being developed? At what point was the 2066 game falsely advertised by either it's developers or Steam?

Are there legal precedents that might suggest what a court is going to look at in existing computer games? For example, has anyone sued a developer or distributor for a completed game because of false advertising? What criteria is a court or steam supposed to use to determine what is false advertising, and what is an unrefutable claim that your dishes will be left virtually spotless?

Although your battery of questions implies incredulity, its actually quite simple. Its basically a matter of judicial discretion.  15 U.S.C.A. § 1051 et seq. (also known as the Lanham Act), contains the Federal laws that govern truth in advertising.  Of course, in the US, most States have their own laws and regulations, as well.

Under the Lanham Act, false advertising arises when "a representation is untrue as a result of the failure to disclose a material fact."  Thus, false advertising can come from both misstatements and partially correct statements that are misleading because they do not disclose something the consumer should know.  The Trademark Law Revision Act of 1988, left creation of the line between sufficient and insufficient disclosure to the discretion of the courts.

Although, digital publishing and distribution raises several unique legal issues, I don't think "early access" changes the general rule that has existed since at least 1946.  Advertising is fine for Early Access, or unfinished software, so long as there are disclosures and so long as there are no misleading statements made as to the actual state of the game, its present characteristics and features, etc.  It may, however, get a little more tricky if claims are made as to future features and characteristics that the developer plans on implementing, or hopes to implement. However, I'm sure the courts will someday manage this on a case by case basis.

[skeptical.platypus]

So how does the law, steam, or the community determine what is false advertising or a false claim, particularly in a game that is currently being developed? At what point was the 2066 game falsely advertised by either it's developers or Steam?

Are there legal precedents that might suggest what a court is going to look at in existing computer games? For example, has anyone sued a developer or distributor for a completed game because of false advertising? What criteria is a court or steam supposed to use to determine what is false advertising, and what is an unrefutable claim that your dishes will be left virtually spotless?

Although your battery of questions implies incredulity, its actually quite simple. Its basically a matter of judicial discretion.  15 U.S.C.A. § 1051 et seq. (also known as the Lanham Act), contains the Federal laws that govern truth in advertising.  Of course, in the US, most States have their own laws and regulations, as well.

Under the Lanham Act, false advertising arises when "a representation is untrue as a result of the failure to disclose a material fact."  Thus, false advertising can come from both misstatements and partially correct statements that are misleading because they do not disclose something the consumer should know.  The Trademark Law Revision Act of 1988, left creation of the line between sufficient and insufficient disclosure to the discretion of the courts.

Although, digital publishing and distribution raises several unique legal issues, I don't think "early access" changes the general rule that has existed since at least 1946.  Advertising is fine for Early Access, or unfinished software, so long as there are disclosures and so long as there are no misleading statements made as to the actual state of the game, its present characteristics and features, etc.  It may, however, get a little more tricky if claims are made as to future features and characteristics that the developer plans on implementing, or hopes to implement. However, I'm sure the courts will someday manage this on a case by case basis.

My great skepticism is certainly not meant to implied, but rather explicit. However, it's not skepticism that the legal system hasn't, can't, or won't be able to establish clear criteria. My question about the legal system was to learn of court cases involving a computer game (but it occurs to me that it's probably as informative at least to me if it were any game), as I'd like to see what the courts consider a material fact for a computer game. I mean, for example, is "runs on Windows XP" a material fact? What are the material facts for 2066 that were misrepresented?

My great skepticism comes from the simultaneous existence of these laws, and the obvious presence of products on the market that flaunt at least the spirit of these laws, and a billion products every day that use all kinds of weaselly language to avoid misrepresenting a material fact. And I look at fucktards like the folks behind 2066, and wonder if they aren't going to find language exactly like the fucktards  behind extenze or leaving dishes virtually spotless. And so I have some skepticism if the legal system will avail us of what triggered this debate in the first place -- stopping 2066 from existing in the first place,

Jarhead, or other lawyers -- based on what you know of court activity regarding false advertising in games or entertainment, is there enough precedent or information out there for Steam lawyers to apply some of the court's criteria for false advertising, if Steam wanted to? Does this question even make sense?

I'm also curious about the legal implications, if any, for Steam over the copyright infringement for 2066. I think someone showed they had stolen some art from somebody? If that's true, is there greater responsibility for Steam and therefore greater liability? Doesn't the WSJ, for example, have greater liability for copyright infringement on their site than liability for false advertising?

[tgb]

The only court case I remember hearing about was some sort of class-action suit over the ending of Mass Effect 3, and I'm not even sure that went anywhere.

[SgtRock]

It's just a bad business practice to sell unfinished goods, software isn't like unfinished furniture. Even if Steam develops new rules & standards for developers, not all developers have the same standards, one developers Beta release is another's Alpha release. Even good developers with every intention of completing their project may not be able too!

Sure anyone can sue Steam but, just the cost of letter from the Lawyer will exceed the cost of almost anything you buy on Steam.

[Boggit]

...apparently due to false advertising from the developer.  Full refunds will be issued through May 19th.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/05/07/earth-year-2066-removed-from-steam/#more-205663

Steam should probably enforce this policy a little more frequently. I'm sure there are several other early access games that would meet the criteria for removal.  I think more transparency and honesty with respect to early access titles would be beneficial to not only steam, but to most honest developers, as well.

What would that look like? I mean, when you say more transparency and honesty, what is the information you are looking for? Sales? Vetted bios/resumes of stakeholders? Frequency of updates over a given time period? Developers must respond to X% of the posts on Steam forum?

I don't disagree that honesty and transparency are a good thing. I'm just not sure what that looks like in terms of games and game development.

I think it looks like not making false claims about what your game is, what features it presently includes, not deleting or locking all user comments who want to post accurate feedback, not using friends to post positive comments, and not stealing other people's works, for starters.

+1 I totally agree. That covers the basics of integrity in good business. :)