Game Informer writer Matt Helgeson put up an opinion piece earlier today that discusses his belief that the lawsuit filed against Gearbox for Aliens: Colonial Marines is wrong. As I felt similarly when the story original broke, I was glad that Helgeson was able to do a very good job in explaining his position. [url=http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2013/05/01/the-aliens-colonial-marines-class-action-lawsuit-is-wrong.aspx]You can read the article here.[/url] While I like everything he wrote, I want to emphasize two of the points I feel are especially important regarding this case. First, I don't agree that people were "deliberately mislead"--at least, not any more than any other company does with any other product advertising. You don't shout from the rooftops about the potential flaws of your product, you emphasize its good traits. They showed off what they had that looked good for the game to show it in the best light possible. Look at a commercial for McDonald's. Those fries look damn good, don't they? All golden brown and crisp. And that Filet-o-Fish looks so delicious cooked to just the right temperature with a perfect layer of tartar sauce. Then you go to your local McDonald's and the fries have been sitting for ten minutes and they're not salted, and half the tarter sauce for your fish sandwich is slopped all over the inside of the box instead of the fish patty. They make it look pretty so you'll buy it. Morally right? Maybe not, and it tends to make customers wary of that company's products. But justification for a lawsuit? I hardly think so. In the case of games, buyer beware. Do your research before making a purchase, read previews, read reviews, put attention to the developer's actions, look at the developer's track record. Don't pre-order a game that looks fishy, or if you already have, watch that game's development closely. In the case of Aliens, it sounded like a good game when Game Informer first covered it. But after not seeing any significant progress shown off by development year 4, after multiple delays, I felt suspicious about it. After 6 years, there was no way I was going to touch it unless I heard awesome things about it AFTER release. Before my next point, I should point out that I am definitely not a lawyer, but from what I do know of the legal system, I believe my interpretation of potential events is correct. If this case is successful, it sets a very bad precedent. Things happen during development that can change the course of a game, for better or for worse. If this case was successful, it could be referenced in plenty of cases in which the final state of the game did not represent what the developers wanted. Being on Bungie.net, here's one that hits close to home: Halo 2. Go watch the 20th Anniversary video. They talk about how the E3 presentation made for Halo 2 was something they fully intended to be in the final game. And it wasn't. According to Bungie, it was just too ambitious for the technology available at the time. Now, if this case against Aliens is successful, it could be used as reasonable grounds for someone that felt especially dissatisfied with Halo 2 to sue Bungie or Microsoft, pointing at some of the problems with the game to justify their case. Another example. Bioshock Infinite had a scene with a horse that was very prominently featured during an E3 demo. And it was not in the final game. Frankly, I was disappointed with that, because it was played up as such an interesting scene. In fact, looking at that demo, a lot of parts of that game were changed either visually or functionally for the final cut. But I couldn't justify suing Irrational just because they pulled a potentially interesting scene, essentially "misleading" me about the content in the final game, especially when I don't know the reason it was done. So that's my two cents. I think it's wrong to try to heap legal punishment on something for which the standards or quality are determined by the individual buyer.