Sega, Gearbox Respond to Aliens: Colonial Marines Class Action Lawsuit

Aliens: Colonial Marines publisher Sega and developer Gearbox Software have responded to a class action lawsuit filed this week related to claims that the game was the falsely advertised.

A Sega spokesperson said that the company could not discuss the specifics of the ongoing litigation, and that the lawsuit was baseless:

"Sega cannot comment on specifics of ongoing litigation, but we are confident that the lawsuit is without merit and we will defend it vigorously," said a Sega spokesperson to Kotaku.

A Gearbox Software spokesperson expanded on Sega's comments slightly, saying that the lawsuit was "beyond meritless."

"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," said a spokesperson for the developer.

The lawsuit filed earlier this week in a Californian court by firm Edelson LLC, claimed that the final game "bore little resemblance" to the early footage of Aliens: Colonial Marines shown in demos and gameplay trailers. The lawsuit called the sale of the game to consumers as a classic case of "bait-and-switch."

Aliens: Colonial Marines launched this year to a very negative reception. The game was co-developed by TimeGate Studios and Gearbox Software for publisher Sega. TimeGate filed for bankruptcy protection earlier this week.

Source: GameSpot

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. 0
    faefrost says:

    stop me if I am wrong here, but pretty much every time I have ever been involved with a Beta or a prerelease demo, or even been shown screen shots of an upcomming product, there is somewhere bundled in the disclaimer that what we were looking at are pre release materials and they may differ from the actual released product. Did they not do that in this case? 

    Also isn't the main determinant for this sort of thing the comparison between the final release features list on the box, spec sheets and marketing materials vs what the product actually is? I'm not saying ACM was not truly horrible, but the cut point for liability is when you examine the final spec sheet when it releases. Even with a  pre order, that's when you are supposed to decide whether or not to hand over money.  This is not like the WarZ fiasco where the actual delivered product did not match the release specs. The product has to match the final features list, not the development list of goals.

    Or am I looking at this the wrong way in some way?

  2. 0
    Hevach says:

    I kind of hope this actually goes to trial instead of just quietly disappearing like so many others like the Mass Effect III ending lawsuit or the old Everquest downtime lawsuit, or the one over Farscape's cancellation. I want something concrete I can point to and say, "No, the law will not subsidize your petty rage."

Leave a Reply