It's too early to really say anything, but I'm just really hoping the plot doesn't boil down to "humans=Good/Everything Else=Bad" like most games do.

All right, credit where credit is due, you fixed it

Looks better

Didn't find the girl from the splash art anywhere in the trailer either, seems a systemic issue with misleading advertisement. "Elaborate pixel art" reads like "delicious dogmeat" to me,

Ursprünglich geschrieben von PHOBIE:

Didn't find the girl from the splash art anywhere in the trailer either, seems a systemic issue with misleading advertisement. "Elaborate pixel art" reads like "delicious dogmeat" to me,

All of the characters from our promotional materials will appear in the complete game. The demo and trailer are deliberately designed to avoid spoiling any late-game content, so they are mostly created from a single early mission. Sorry if there was any confusion on this point.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Lance:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von PHOBIE:

Didn't find the girl from the splash art anywhere in the trailer either, seems a systemic issue with misleading advertisement. "Elaborate pixel art" reads like "delicious dogmeat" to me,

All of the characters from our promotional materials will appear in the complete game. The demo and trailer are deliberately designed to avoid spoiling any late-game content, so they are mostly created from a single early mission. Sorry if there was any confusion on this point.

Yes, there is the confusion of misleading advertising, deliberately designed. There is no "spoiling late-game content" that applies to advertising. Either you have it, then you can show it, or you don't then it's a lie. There are fines for this, "sorry" doesn't fix it.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von PHOBIE:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Lance:

All of the characters from our promotional materials will appear in the complete game. The demo and trailer are deliberately designed to avoid spoiling any late-game content, so they are mostly created from a single early mission. Sorry if there was any confusion on this point.

Yes, there is the confusion of misleading advertising, deliberately designed. There is no "spoiling late-game content" that applies to advertising. Either you have it, then you can show it, or you don't then it's a lie. There are fines for this, "sorry" doesn't fix it.

To clarify, characters from official artwork will all appear in SacriFire.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Lance:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von PHOBIE:

Yes, there is the confusion of misleading advertising, deliberately designed. There is no "spoiling late-game content" that applies to advertising. Either you have it, then you can show it, or you don't then it's a lie. There are fines for this, "sorry" doesn't fix it.

To clarify, characters from official artwork will all appear in SacriFire.

In a nutshell, it seems that the situation revolves around the developers promising a cute character in high resolution through their marketing materials, but then delivering a demo (and possibly a full game) that doesn't reflect that quality.

• The demo serves as a marketing tool that provides a preview of the gameplay experience. If the high-resolution splash art does not accurately reflect the visual quality and style of the demo, consumers may feel misled.
  
• Even if the artists intend to showcase character designs, the lack of representation of these designs in the demo raises questions about transparency. If consumers encounter a lower-quality aesthetic in the demo than presented in marketing, they might perceive the developers as employing deceptive practices.

• In gaming, particularly with demos, consumers expect a representative sample of the game experience, including graphics, gameplay mechanics, and overall atmosphere. A demo that showcases pixelated visuals while advertising high-resolution art could lead to a sense of betrayal.
  
• Consumers who try the demo with the expectation of high-quality visuals based on marketing may become disillusioned. This could prompt frustration, as players might feel compelled to advocate against misaligned representations.

• The developer’s claim that they do not need to present the splash art's counterparts in the demo might be interpreted differently by players. If they prioritize artistic freedom over consumer rights, this could be viewed as neglect in fulfilling ethical advertising standards.
  
• Should consumers believe that the use of splash art is simply a stylization choice rather than a genuine representation of gameplay, the discussion opens about the balance between creative expression and ethical responsibilities to potential buyers.

• Consumer protection laws regarding advertising tend to focus on deceptive practices that significantly affect purchasing decisions. If consumers can argue that the visual presentation in the demo led to misleading expectations, it raises potential regulatory scrutiny.
  
• Depending on the jurisdiction, a substantial discussion may emerge over whether the demo constitutes a breach of these regulations if it does not accurately depict expected quality.

• Consumer feedback plays a crucial role, as negative experiences from the demo can color perceptions of the game and the brand. If many consumers voice dissatisfaction or share their experiences on social media, this could amplify a negative reputation.
  
• Developers risk creating an initial public relations issue that may become challenging to rectify, potentially influencing sales and community reception once the actual game is released.

• When transitioning from demo to the full game, the advertising continuity is pivotal. If the game does not uniformly represent the visuals suggested by splash art—especially if characters are predominantly showcased without the gameplay context—it may still lead to accusations of misleading advertising.
  
• Consumers may feel that while all characters appear, the aesthetic quality is paramount, suggesting a deliberate choice not to represent the gameplay honestly.

• Players purchasing the full game based on the promotional art may find themselves in a position where their visual expectations are not met. Valid consumer rights may be violated if they feel their choices were based on misleading information.
  
• Even if all characters are present, the issues arise around how players conceptualize the game’s aesthetic coherence. Disparity between the marketed visuals and actual gameplay may disappoint those who invested time or money based on flawed expectations.

• Developers may justify their marketing approach by claiming that later-game visuals will improve over time as players progress, yet consumers might argue that such a strategy seems to prioritize hype over clarity.
  
• If developers assert that their marketing practices are upfront about these aspects, any failure to transparently communicate the aesthetic choices could be challenged as a misleading practice.

• Legal viewpoints remain significant, as different regions may have diverse thresholds for evaluating whether advertising misleads consumers. These interpretations can influence how developers structure their acknowledgments of consumer rights in promotional materials.
  
• Persistent complaints from consumers about misleading content could lead to formal investigations or actions against developers, further emphasizing the importance of clear representations in advertising.

• Buyer sentiment regarding the game may hinge on the visual disparity experienced. Posting reviews, ratings, and comments reflecting dissatisfaction due to misleading advertising can shape a negative perception of the game.
  
• Developers might experience decreased sales as a result, potentially impacting future projects and community trust. A failure to address concerns about commercialization versus genuine representation could lead to long-term reputational damage.

• In both scenarios, significant ethical and legal considerations arise regarding consumer rights. Developers must navigate the balance between creating compelling marketing content and ensuring that it accurately represents what consumers can expect.
  
• Misleading advertising—as evidenced by discrepancies between high-resolution splash art and pixelated character designs—can lead to customer dissatisfaction and even regulatory action. Developers must prioritize transparency and align marketing efforts with the actual gaming experience to maintain trust and consumer rights in their advertising.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von PHOBIE:

...

Hi, I am the owner of Pixelated Milk and the project lead for SacriFire. First of all, thank you for your input.

Many story critical characters do not appear in the demo, because they are introduced later in the narrative. All characters shown in our promotional materials will be present in the final product. Our Kickstarter page made back in 2021 shows their in-game animated sprites and portraits.

The pixel art nature of the game is communicated clearly in all of our trailers, screenshots and storefronts including the Kickstarter page.

To evaluate the validity of the developer's response under EU and US laws, we need to focus on principles regarding advertising, consumer protection, and misrepresentation.

EU Law Considerations

1. Misleading Advertising (Directive 2005/29/EC): The EU's Unfair Commercial Practices Directive prohibits misleading actions and omissions. If consumers are lured in by high-resolution artwork featuring characters that do not reflect the final product, this could be considered misleading. The key question is whether customers are likely to be deceived by the art style presented before they reach the store page. If the promotional materials emphasize a visual style (such as high-resolution artwork) that does not match the in-game experience (pixel art), it may run afoul of EU regulations.
   
2. Consumer Information (Directive 2011/83/EU): Consumers must be provided with clear and comprehensive information before making a purchase. If the promotional materials highlight high-resolution artwork and downplay the pixel art aspect until further navigation, it could be argued that the information provided does not adequately inform consumers about the product they are purchasing.
   
3. Right to Withdrawal: Consumers in the EU have a right to withdraw from a purchase within a certain period. If they find that the product does not match the expectations set by promotional materials, they may feel justified in invoking this right.

US Law Considerations

1. Truth in Advertising (FTC Act): The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) requires that advertising must be truthful and not misleading. If consumers are led to believe that the game features a different art style based on the splash art, and later discover it is primarily pixel art, it could be interpreted as a violation of the FTC’s standards for truthfulness.
   
2. Deceptive Marketing Practices: Like EU law, US law prohibits marketing that is likely to mislead consumers about a product's attributes. If the high-resolution artwork is the first thing consumers see and does not accurately portray the game style, this approach could be viewed as deceptive.
   
3. Consumer Protection Laws: Different states in the US also have their own consumer protection laws which may provide additional avenues for evaluating the claims made by the developer.

Developer's Defense

The developer cites that the pixel art nature of the game is communicated through all promotional materials, including trailers, screenshots, and the Kickstarter page. The validity of this defense would depend on:

• Visibility and Prominence: Were the pixel art aspects given sufficient visibility and prominence relative to the high-resolution artwork?
  
• Consumer Perception: Studies on consumer perception might be needed to determine whether the average consumer would likely be misled by the initial visuals.
  
• Comprehensive Representation: Whether the Kickstarter page and additional materials sufficiently represent the overall experience of the game should also be considered.

Conclusion

In conclusion, both EU and US laws prioritize truthfulness and clarity in advertising. If users were predominantly attracted by high-resolution artwork that significantly contrasts with the pixel art style they later encounter, it raises valid questions concerning the legality and ethical implications of such marketing practices. The developer's claim of clarity in communication would likely be scrutinized based on the effectiveness of the messages conveyed throughout the promotional materials and whether they adequately prepare consumers for the actual product experience.

The evaluation of the developer's response to the potential misrepresentation issues must also consider the implications of Steam's policies and compliance with relevant laws. Below are considerations regarding Steam's position in relation to EU and US laws, focusing on noncompliance with withdrawal or recompense requirements.

Steam's Noncompliance with EU Withdrawal and Recompense Requirements

The EU's Consumer Rights Directive outlines specific rights for consumers, including the right to withdraw from a purchase within a 14-day period and to receive full reimbursement. While Steam, as a digital distribution platform, has its own return policy that allows for a two-hour trial window, this policy may be in conflict with EU regulations, particularly in the following ways:

1. Limitation of Withdrawal Rights: The two-hour window provided by Steam to evaluate a product is significantly less than the 14-day withdrawal period mandated by EU law for most types of purchases. This limitation could be interpreted as an unfair restriction on consumer rights, particularly if the product is found to be misrepresented or unsatisfactory after the short evaluation period.
   
2. Misrepresentation Impact on Withdrawal Rights: If a consumer is misled about the nature of the product based on promotional materials and tries to return the product after the two-hour window due to dissatisfaction with the pixel art style, Steam's policy might prevent them from exercising their right to withdraw under EU law. This could open Steam (and possibly the developer) up to legal scrutiny for noncompliance with the right to withdrawal.
   
3. Potential for Legal Challenge: Consumers who believe they were misled about a product due to its promotional materials could challenge Steam’s return policies, arguing that they should be allowed a fair period to assess whether the product meets their expectations as set by advertising claims.

Implications Under US Law

Considering Steam's practices in the context of US law raises additional questions:

1. Consumer Expectations: If consumers in the US are deceived by the promotional imagery and feel misled about the product received, it could lead to claims against both the developer and Steam for negligent misrepresentation or deceptive trade practices. The assessment could focus on whether adequate opportunities for refund or exchange are provided when the products are not as described.
   
2. Registration and E-Commerce Regulations: Steam, operating a digital storefront, must comply with applicable e-commerce regulations that could affect disclosure and consumer protection obligations. If consumers increasingly report dissatisfaction or deception based on promotional materials, Steam may face reputational damage and potential regulatory scrutiny.

The Developer's Defense Revisited

In light of Steam's noncompliance with EU laws, the developer's defense regarding clarity and representation in promotional materials must also encompass how these materials were displayed on Steam. If sufficient consumer information was not only misleading but also limited by the platform's restrictive return policy, the effectiveness of the developer's communication strategy may be undermined.

Key Considerations for Developer's Defense:

• Interaction with Retail Platform Policies: It is important to examine how the developer's promotional materials were displayed on Steam compared to their own promotional channels like Kickstarter.
  
• The Role of Steam in Consumer Experience: As a platform facilitating sales, Steam holds responsibility for ensuring that its practices align with consumer protection laws, influencing the developer's liability in potential legal scenarios.

Conclusion

Overall, both EU and US law frameworks strive to protect consumer rights against misleading advertising and inadequate disclosure. Steam's return policy presents concerns regarding compliance with EU mandates, particularly in light of the potential misrepresentation by the developer. Any legal evaluation will closely examine not only the developer's advertising practices and the context provided by Steam but also the broader regulatory obligations both entities must adhere to in their commercial activities. The outcome of such scrutiny could have significant implications for both Steam and game developers regarding how digital products are marketed and sold.

Omg Phobie! Your original gripe was addressed and clarified. You are TRYING to pick a fight. If you have that much of a "problem" with the demo, THEN DONT BUY IT! The devs went above and beyond to answer your questions and concerns. If you actually care about gaming culture and rights why not go after the big offenders like EA, Uplay, EPIC.....oh that's right bc you are a troll not a consumer rights activist you pretend to be and its easier to attack a small start up for non issues than actually make meaningful change in the gaming space with real targets. So.....in summary SHUT IT YOU DONT SPEAK FOR US GAMERS!

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Nirrik:

Omg Phobie! Your original gripe was addressed and clarified. You are TRYING to pick a fight. If you have that much of a "problem" with the demo, THEN DONT BUY IT! The devs went above and beyond to answer your questions and concerns. If you actually care about gaming culture and rights why not go after the big offenders like EA, Uplay, EPIC.....oh that's right bc you are a troll not a consumer rights activist you pretend to be and its easier to attack a small start up for non issues than actually make meaningful change in the gaming space with real targets. So.....in summary SHUT IT YOU DONT SPEAK FOR US GAMERS!

The comment from "Nirrik" can be analyzed for various logical fallacies and rhetorical strategies that distract from the core issue regarding consumer rights and potentially misleading advertising practices. Below, I outline several points related to errors, fallacies, and broader considerations that relate to EU and US consumer protection laws.

### Errors and Fallacies in Nirrik's Comment

1. Ad Hominem Attack:
- Nirrik diverts from the content of the original complaint by attacking the character of the user ("Omg Phobie!") instead of addressing the substance of their concerns. By labeling them a "troll" rather than engaging with their critique of the game’s marketing, Nirrik fails to construct a rational argument.

2. Straw Man Fallacy:
- Nirrik misrepresents the user's position by framing it as an attack on small developers, rather than engaging with the user’s specific grievances about misleading advertising. The original commenter appears to be discussing possible misrepresentation rather than making a blanket condemnation of all small developers.

3. False Dilemma:
- The comment suggests that users who have concerns about the demo must either "buy it" or "shut up." This simplifies the conversation to two extremes, ignoring the possibility of constructive criticism and dialogue about consumer rights.

4. Bandwagon Fallacy:
- By stating "you DON’T SPEAK FOR US GAMERS," Nirrik appeals to a presumed collective identity among gamers, which can invalidate individual concerns without addressing their validity. It suggests that dissenting opinions are unrepresentative of the gaming community as a whole, while the reality may be more nuanced.

5. Distraction from Core Issues:
- Nirrik's call to criticize larger companies like EA or Uplay shifts focus away from the particular issue at hand—whether the promotional materials of the smaller developer are misleading. This deflection could serve to minimize legitimate concerns about the developer's practices.

### Broader Considerations in Relation to EU and US Consumer Protection Laws

The issues raised by the user go beyond personal grievances and speak to broader regulatory concerns, as highlighted in the provided legal framework.

- Misleading Advertising and Consumer Rights: Both EU and US laws advocate for truthful marketing and sufficient consumer information. If the promotional material displayed high-resolution artwork that does not reflect the final product, as the original user alleged, then there are valid grounds for invoking these laws.

- Right to Withdrawal: Nirrik's dismissal of the user's concerns fails to acknowledge the legal framework that supports consumer rights, such as the EU's Consumer Rights Directive, which entitles consumers to withdraw from purchases made under the belief of misleading advertising. If the product does not match consumer expectations based on the promotional materials, the argument for withdrawal rights becomes stronger.

- Developer’s Responsibility: The onus is on developers not only to create engaging products but also to ensure that their advertising is fair and honest. If promotional materials provided misleading information that could lead consumers to make uninformed purchases, the developer could be held accountable under both EU and US consumer protection laws.

- Role of Platforms like Steam: The comment also overlooks the fact that platforms such as Steam may share responsibility for maintaining accurate representations of the products sold. The interaction between the platform's return policy and the promotional strategies of individual developers is an essential aspect of this legal discussion.

### Conclusion

In summary, Nirrik’s comment contains several logical fallacies that cloud the substantive dialogue about consumer rights in gaming. Genuine concerns about misleading advertising practices, as framed by the original user's comments, deserve serious consideration, especially within the context of EU and US consumer protection laws. These considerations stress the importance of clear and truthful marketing, highlight the developer's responsibilities, and examine the implications of platform policies on consumer rights. The conversation should ideally center around these issues rather than devolving into personal attacks or distractions.

I don't know about you folks but uh... I've got Gas.