When WYSIWYG isn’t really WYSIWYG.

[Rurouni]

If currently accessible hardware can play the game @5fps but the soon to be released hardware can play the game as shown in the ad (assuming that the ad showing the game @30fps), then they still need a disclaimer because there is no way when the ad was made they have the hardware to run it. But in this case, instead of artistic rendition, they can put simulated performance on future hardware. The key is that future hardware should be the next iteration from current available hardware and not 2 or more generation into the future.
This is only needed if the ad shows something that is supposed to be in game or gameplay. Basically just don't lie to the consumer. Using artistic approach for an ad isn't wrong, but when they try to shove their artistic license as reality, that's is where I draw the line. It's similar to the bullshot thing.

 

[Shortbread]

So if the OP is against misleading adverts, is the OP also against misleading movie trailers?

I tried to limit the original topic just to console games... too sideline any offtopic talks/material from being talked about. But yes, I'm against false advertising anything. However, I believe there are levels of tolerance (acceptable BS and unacceptable BS) when it comes to misleading advertisement.

Movies trailers are more geared towards everyone (the general population), while game trailers are more focused towards gamers. So, while a movie trailer may pack in the greatest parts... the most exciting and wonderful bits... It still boils down to ones taste (opinion) of what's a good or bad movie. Things such as great IQ (awesome cinematography), visually appealing effects - that are presented in movie trailers are more than likely in the movie, regardless of the movie sucking or not. (Insert Michael Bay jokes were needed).

Console game trailers, specifically the triple A franchises games in the U.S., are purposely enhancing IQ and framerates, that are virtually impossible for today's consoles. Being a good or bad game doesn't really apply here... it's just outright deception from a visual/performance standpoint alone.

Actually, reading the OP carefully, the subject is specifically whether showing improved game content is dubious. I think lawfully, yes. In the UK it certainly is, although if the game is cross-platform and available on PC, they wouldn't be out of place. It's like putting Amiga screenshots on a C64 version of a game - the game does look like that, just not the version you'll be playing on your machine.

This, and yes. As I stated above, being a good or bad game is based on ones taste... but misrepresenting a products visuals and performance is outright wrong.

 

[joker454]

... but misrepresenting a products visuals and performance is outright wrong.

It's actually somewhat better now than it used to be, but misrepresenting visuals has been going on for decades in the games biz. In the 80s they would show arcade game pictures rather than show you what the actual console version of the game looked like, or they would use the best version of a multi paltform game on an Atari 2600 commercial. Capcom did that in the NES days as well, like where the back of the box for Ghosts And Goblins on NES showed a picture of the arcade version. What can you do, when there's no regulation that's what you get.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

What can you do, when there's no regulation that's what you get.

Has the US law not been updated since those days the same way the UK/EU law has? I guess not given the OP.

 

[Shortbread]

What can you do, when there's no regulation that's what you get.

That's where Sony, MS, EA, Activision, UBISOFT and so on, step up to the plate, before possible regulations and state (show) they are no longer tolerating/pushing these practices. Let the game speak for itself - flaws in all. But that's in a perfect gumball world... so I don't see that happening.

Maybe better government regulation is needed?

 

[Shortbread]

Has the US law not been updated since those days the same way the UK/EU law has? I guess not given the OP.

If it has, I haven't seen it yet.

 

[joker454]

Has the US law not been updated since those days the same way the UK/EU law has? I guess not given the OP.

I have to assume no because things like bullshots, photoshopping promo pics, pre-rendered videos passed as realtime, etc, still goes on alas. I mean even if there were laws all you have to do it put a tiny asterisk next to the pictures/videos with even tinier fine print elsewhere explaining that what you see may or may not be indicative of what you will actually get, and they would probably be protected from any legal wrong doing. Or they could generically claim everything shown is "subject to change" which would probably protect them as well. We still see this behavior rampant in other industries as well, like the burgers you get at a drive through never look like the pictures on the order menu, etc. As aggravating as it is though I still think it's much better now than it used to be decades ago where the whole "Just like the arcade!" claims with false pictures was sometimes bordering on the absurd. Some self regulated though like Parker Brothers in this ad:

...where they would be honest about how every version looked, which was very cool at the time.

 

[zed]

I mean even if there were laws all you have to do it put a tiny asterisk next to the pictures/videos with even tinier fine print elsewhere explaining that what you see may or may not be indicative of what you will actually get

Like on cigarette packets/alcohol drinks etc

ps I already pre empted the hamburger thing

 

[Arwin]

With the current generation of kids growing up with internet reviews and feedback, this thing may become irrelevant eventually.