Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

California Man Sues Sony Because Killzone: Shadowfall Isn't Really 1080

timothy posted about 2 months ago | from the gaming-culture dept.

Sony 286

Sonny Yatsen (603655) writes A California man with nothing better to do has launched a class-action lawsuit against Sony because he claims he was harmed because Killzone: Shadowfall's multiplayer mode doesn't have native 1080p resolution as Sony originally claimed. He now demands 'all economic, monetary, actual, consequential, statutory and compensatory damages' as well as punitive damages from Sony.

cancel ×

286 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

more power to him (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47623487)

as much as I don't care, some game companies need their hands slapped when it comes to false advertising. anyone remember simcity 4 multiplayer?

Re:more power to him (4, Funny)

ganjadude (952775) | about 2 months ago | (#47623721)

go back even further, remember the atari games that would have box art that looked NOTHING like the game itself? http://games.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]

They deserve it (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47623491)

One one hand, this is a stupid frivolous lawsuit, but on the other hand game publishers have been feeding us so much bullshit and lies that I wish this guy would win just to make a point.

Re:They deserve it (1, Flamebait)

postbigbang (761081) | about 2 months ago | (#47623607)

Not so frivolous.

This sort of deception is endemic. Comcast/xFinity creeps most "HD-TV" down to 720p. Not HD in my mind. If Sony says: 1080p, and they lied, then the litigation seems warranted to me. Usually vendors bury this stuff under the rug.

Re:They deserve it (4, Insightful)

Jeff Flanagan (2981883) | about 2 months ago | (#47623673)

720p is absolutely HD, regardless of what's happened to your mind.

Re:They deserve it (1, Funny)

ganjadude (952775) | about 2 months ago | (#47623733)

sure, and so if 480, if you are upgrading from B&W

Re:They deserve it (4, Informative)

kannibal_klown (531544) | about 2 months ago | (#47624111)

Except 720p was always defined as HD.

Initially, you had two choices: 720progressive or 1080interlaced. They both required more-or-less the same bandwidth to run. 1080p is more of a Jonny-come-lately.

Many preferred 720p for some shows where the progressive scan adding an important benefit: mostly fast-moving scenes (sports, action, etc). Others preferred interlaced for shows that didn't need the fine detail in motion.

Eventually, years later, 1080p became a thing but for a while some TVs didn't even support it. And heck, cable-TV only recently started supported in limited amounts.

Re:They deserve it (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about 2 months ago | (#47624337)

agreed, i was only making a joke

Re:They deserve it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47623769)

720p is absolutely HD, regardless of what's happened to your mind.

1080p is also HD.

If you're going to identify what the game resolution is by specific resolution or number, then Sony better know in their minds that people know how to do math.

Re:They deserve it (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 months ago | (#47623987)

Both 1280x720 and 1920x1080 are HD according to the ATSC standards.

Re:They deserve it (1)

postbigbang (761081) | about 2 months ago | (#47624075)

I realize this. 720p is the lowest upgrade to NTSC. This is what Comcast shot for. Everyone must upgrade, and they get the minimum.

When you rent or buy a 1080p(or i) and player to watch a video, after having seen the same in 720, the difference makes people go crazy. They feel robbed. That's how I feel. This isn't a screed about customer service, monopolies, etc. It's about resolution, and Comcast and others are delivering the bare bottom media.

Re:They deserve it (2)

Lumpy (12016) | about 2 months ago | (#47624147)

wrong. 480p is the LOWEST upgrade to NTSC. Learn your ATSC standards.

Re:They deserve it (1)

postbigbang (761081) | about 2 months ago | (#47624247)

But it's not HDTV. It's EDTV, as in Enhanced Definition. ATSC can be a transport, but that doesn't make this sow's ear into a silk purse.

Re:They deserve it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47624389)

You do realize networks like Fox only broadcast in 720p right? What do you expect Comcast to do?

Re:They deserve it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47624065)

Most definitions of HD define it as "at least 1280x720", though, so Comcast isn't lying. "Full HD" is the consumer term for 1920x1080. Likewise, "Ultra HD" means either 3840x2160 or 7680x4320, with separate "4K" and "8K" designators for each video resolution, respectively.

"With Nothing Better To Do"? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47623493)

So he should just take it up the rear and not do anything about the company's lies? BOHICA! I'm glad he's suing. Let him represent the rest of us. Hopefully, companies will learn that they can't get away with this BS.

Re:"With Nothing Better To Do"? (5, Insightful)

firex726 (1188453) | about 2 months ago | (#47623943)

Exactly... What was with the opening?

If they claimed X and did not deliver it, it's a legitimate claim to be made. Should game companies be immune to false advertising claims just becuase they make "video games".

Would the writer also say that the Aliens:CM false trailer was also frivolous?

You go girl (5, Insightful)

Russ1642 (1087959) | about 2 months ago | (#47623497)

I'm for it. Blatant false advertizing needs to be punished and this is the route that's available to him.

Re:You go girl (5, Interesting)

sconeu (64226) | about 2 months ago | (#47623675)

Now go after them for their blatant false advertising:

"OWN $MOVIE ON BLU-RAY TODAY!!!", when they later actually claim that you don't own the movie.

Re:You go girl (1)

firex726 (1188453) | about 2 months ago | (#47623967)

Yea, they need to say Lease, since you are in effect leasing it for a one time fee for, however many years that they keep the authentication servers online (for digital content).

Re:You go girl (2)

zzottt (629458) | about 2 months ago | (#47624013)

its because you own the bluray but not the contents of said bluray. It might be slight of hand but if you are literal and pay attention to the words being used its not bait and switch

Re:You go girl (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47624127)

I think your interpretation is incorrect. The sentence says you own $MOVIE, which is on "BLU-RAY". You are giving them credit for saying "Own Blu-Ray with $MOVIE on it". YMMV

Re:You go girl (1)

thaylin (555395) | about 2 months ago | (#47624137)

"Own on" implies you own the content, not just the medium after the on.

If I say eat cheese on crackers that implies that I actually get to eat the cheese and the crackers

Re:You go girl (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 2 months ago | (#47624163)

or the fact that 99% of blurays are actually worse than the DVD. I have a superbit DVD of the 5th element that looks drastically better than the crap they released for the blu ray. OOOOOOHHHHH FILM GRAIN!!!!!

Re:You go girl (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47624309)

99%?

Re:You go girl (4, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 2 months ago | (#47623681)

I'm for it. Blatant false advertizing needs to be punished and this is the route that's available to him.

On the one hand, I agree with this, especially considering that Sony is pretty well known for their shady business practices.

On the other hand... I just bought a monitor that Tigerdirect advertised as 22", but when it was delivered the box says 21.5", and I don't think that's really worth paying my lawyer $250/hr to handle.

Re:You go girl (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47623935)

Would you sue if you could do it yourself or if you merely wanted to learn about how to do it yourself? That is what this guy seems to be doing. Amusingly your name is CanHasDIY. CanHasLegalRights?

There are so many bad things worth taking legal action over right now and the only thing stopping people is money. It would be a good thing to take up hands-on learning about our legal system with the same fervor we had while learning how to code. Imagine the power of a logical coder in one of the largest, most powerful, procedural systems outside of the computing world.

Re:You go girl (2)

firex726 (1188453) | about 2 months ago | (#47623995)

The monitor is 22", the viewable area is 21.5"; the monitor's actual screen extends and is covered by the bezel on the sides.

It's actually an area with a good amount of research being done, minimizing the bezel and getting as much viewable area from a display as possible.

Re:You go girl (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47624015)

I'm pretty sure that if you go back and look more carefully, you'll see that it was advertized as '22 inch class', with the actual dimensions shown elsewhere. I've noticed that that bit of deception is creeping back into monitors. Seems strange that they'd do it again, after getting their hands slapped for doing the same thing back with CRTs. Of course, the difference *now* is that they show the *actual* screen size somewhere in the specs.

Re:You go girl (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 months ago | (#47624377)

Of course, the difference *now* is that they show the *actual* screen size somewhere in the specs.

Of course, the difference now is that there is no difference: Back when we were buying CRTs, it was always normal for the advert to include the viewable area — some didn't, but most did. The cheapies in Computer Shopper were often advertised solely by viewable area, since they were trying to cram as many products into a single small ad as possible. Often you could milk another quarter-inch or so by fiddling with the controls, at risk of some slight distortion, so you'd actually get more than was advertised.

Re:You go girl (1)

jesseck (942036) | about 2 months ago | (#47624017)

On the other hand... I just bought a monitor that Tigerdirect advertised as 22", but when it was delivered the box says 21.5", and I don't think that's really worth paying my lawyer $250/hr to handle.

It's common practice for monitors to be advertised by class and not actual screen size (such as 22" Class LED Monitor, or a 50" TV measuring 49.5"). It is not common practice (and wrong) for 1080p video to mean "720p" - those are distinct values. The video "class" is HD, but specific "size" is 1080p or 720p.

Re:You go girl (1)

tippe (1136385) | about 2 months ago | (#47624103)

On the other hand... I just bought a monitor that Tigerdirect advertised as 22", but when it was delivered the box says 21.5", and I don't think that's really worth paying my lawyer $250/hr to handle.

I wonder if that sort of thing harkens back to the CRT days, when you were usually quoted the tube size (not the actual visible size). For example, the brand new, large-screen 24" TV you bought back in the 90's probably only had a 22" viewing size if you were to actually measure it. In your case, I wonder if Tigerdirect online was quoting the LCD panel size, while the box the monitor came in was referring to the viewing size...

Re:You go girl (1)

jythie (914043) | about 2 months ago | (#47624207)

Sad thing is, this is something regulators and the DoJ SHOULD be doing, but instead they drop the burden on citizens like this to foot the bill for prosecution.

Nathan Fillion is speechless.gif (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47623499)

only acceptable response to this.

Re:Nathan Fillion is speechless.gif (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47623613)

I don't get what the .gif is supposed to mean. Are you trying to reference an image? Why didn't you hyperlink to it?

Fucking puerile moron.

Re:Nathan Fillion is speechless.gif (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47623689)

I don't get what the .gif is supposed to mean. Are you trying to reference an image? Why didn't you hyperlink to it?

Fucking puerile moron.

Boy, that escalated quickly!

.jpg :)

Re:Nathan Fillion is speechless.gif (4, Funny)

rwv (1636355) | about 2 months ago | (#47623801)

I don't get what the .gif is supposed to mean. Are you trying to reference an image? Why didn't you hyperlink to it?

Fucking puerile moron.

Boy, that escalated quickly!

.jpg :)

Whatever... I learned a new word today! puerile.png FTW.

Re:Nathan Fillion is speechless.gif (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47623975)

They're referring to a well-known reaction gif, but can't be arsed to actually provide a link to the file. It's laziness, not puerility.

1080 is 1080 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47623509)

what is 1080p? 1080p means there will be 1920x1080 pixels on a screen scanned top to bottom every frame. That is it. 960x1080 presented at 1920x1080 is 1080p. This still happens on TV all the time. 960x720 as 1280x720 is regularly used on TV. Its still 720p.

Re:1080 is 1080 (4, Informative)

Lazere (2809091) | about 2 months ago | (#47623705)

Not exactly. If they say the game is 1080p, you'd be right to say that 960x1080 presented at 1920x1080 is still accurate. However, if they say the game is at native 1080p, the only definition that fits the bill is 1920x1080 presented at 1920x1080. Sony said the latter.

Are you kidding me? (1)

dontfearthereaper (2657807) | about 2 months ago | (#47623517)

In all seriousness.... what kind of society have we become when we sue over something so meaningless?

Re:Are you kidding me? (2)

Karganeth (1017580) | about 2 months ago | (#47623583)

1080p is not meaningless. Turn your screen to 3/4ths of its native resolution and see how meaningless that is to you.

Re:Are you kidding me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47623649)

You need to look deeper into this. The screen is still outputting a 1080 image, nothing is being upscaled.

Re: Are you kidding me? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47623817)

Yeah, but if I promised my date a whole four inches then gave her a magnifying glass, surely she'd still be disappointed.

Re: Are you kidding me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47624011)

She'd be disappointed with 4 inches also. The magnifying glass won't matter.

Re:Are you kidding me? (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 2 months ago | (#47623997)

In this case the game uses some kind of weird temporal scaling in multiplayer mode, where it renders at 1/2 resolution (960x1080) and then combines two successive frames into one via horizontal interlacing. It looks terrible, blurry as hell and very off-putting. Makes multiplayer almost unbearable.

Re:Are you kidding me? (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 2 months ago | (#47624183)

sit more than 9 feet from the screen and 1080p becomes meaningless.

Re:Are you kidding me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47623599)

You're saying this about a single guy, meanwhile corporations sue the shit out of each other and individuals over even more trivial things.

Re:Are you kidding me? (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 2 months ago | (#47623619)

In all seriousness.... what kind of society have we become when we sue over something so meaningless?

Well, we'd be a society that has a problem with outright fraud, for one.

On the other hand, we're already a society that allows torture, dictators, and general lawlessness. We allow the murder of innocent babies, engagement in non-defensive wars, and for children to get lost in foster care systems. We allow bankers to lie to investors about mortgage quality without going to jail, while penny-ante thieves get jailed for years. We let drunk drivers drive and kill again, and again, and again, and again.

So honestly, I really don't think us allowing a frivolous (in your opinion) lawsuit go forward is a sea-change in the quality of our nation.

Re:Are you kidding me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47623665)

What murder of innocent babies? Do you have something legitimate you're talking about, maybe in our bombing, or are you a wingnut?

Re:Are you kidding me? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47623753)

He's an anti-abortion nutter. They always try to re-frame "fetus" as "baby" and call it murder.

Re:Are you kidding me? (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 2 months ago | (#47624115)

You should have left out the baby bit - all the other complaints span political divides, but abortion is a factional issue.

Re:Are you kidding me? (2)

jythie (914043) | about 2 months ago | (#47624263)

Now now, because of original sin we know those babies probably have it coming.

Re:Are you kidding me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47623645)

Meaningless? You mean false advertising is all peachy and great and we should just let big companies shit on us for profit right? No? Then it's not really "meaningless" then is it?

Re:Are you kidding me? (4, Insightful)

DarkOx (621550) | about 2 months ago | (#47623707)

Okay maybe its not the kind of thing I would be willing to invest time and money in; but you could easily ask the opposite question:

What kind of society have we become when we allow vendors to blatantly misrepresent products prior to sale?

Sony should be honest about the products actual specifications. We have regulations in place because we collectively decided that all the snake-oil selling had to stop. We standardized weights and measures, and pass truth in advertising laws. They should be followed, simple as that.

Re:Are you kidding me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47623869)

Right. I am going to sue my date from last week because there is no way those puppies she was packing were real. False advertising if I ever saw it.

Sue happy whiny bastards... If something is not as advertised, do not buy it. If it turns out to be important to all consumers then they will stop buying it. There are many cases of exaggerated truths in advertising (sure I believe all that crap is 'organic') and it is here to stay.

Get over yourselfs.

Re:Are you kidding me? (1)

VTBlue (600055) | about 2 months ago | (#47624009)

Fallacy of "frivolous" lawsuits is that they are only frivolous when it is not affecting you.

Re:Are you kidding me? (1)

zzottt (629458) | about 2 months ago | (#47624041)

Sueing is how US Law is made. This is the way its always been not something that we have become

Re:Are you kidding me? (1)

jythie (914043) | about 2 months ago | (#47624241)

Even if it is a minor thing, companies still need to get called out on fraud. Ideally the police would handle this, but realistically the only way to have Sony actually get in trouble is a civil suit. The DoJ is not doing its job.

Seems more reasonable once you read the article (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47623519)

The guy just wants his $50 back because the graphics in the game aren't as good as advertised. Frankly, that's actually a reasonable request. You tell someone the game will perform some technical feat, and it doesn't, no shit the customer wants a refund.

Re:Seems more reasonable once you read the article (1)

firex726 (1188453) | about 2 months ago | (#47624055)

Hell, I am surprise it does not happen more often.

How far does it have to go before it's false advertising. You have companies shopping in-game screenshots and using them as advertising of the final product. Or using special render/graphics settings not available to users for in-game trailer footage.

That's a garbage lawsuit (0)

roman_mir (125474) | about 2 months ago | (#47623521)

Killzone's multiplayer mode actually outputs natively in 960x1080 resolution, half of the 1920x1080 standard for "1080p." To output full 1080p graphics, this source image is fixed with a "temporal upscale" that fills in gaps with a horizontal interlace made up of pixels from the previous frame. The result is graphical performance that the lawsuit (and many reviews) call "blurry to the point of distraction."

Sony and developer Guerrilla Games addressed these complaints in a blog post at the time, laying out the details of this "temporal projection" pixel filling and arguing that it indeed provides "subjectively similar results" to native 1080p rendering. Ladore's lawsuit isn't satisfied by this argument. "While this reconstruction technique might be novel, it is decidedly not the 'native 1080p' Sony promised," the complaint argues.

- so every second line consists of pixels from previous frames, but those are still pixels that are not the same as the ones in the current frame, the output has all of the 1920x1080 pixels in it, it's not like 2 lines of pixels are just 1 line stretched vertically. Technically Sony should win this.

Practically I hate the 1080p standard. Whatever happened to 1920x1200? When I need another monitor for the office, I always look for these, they are harder to come by nowadays.

Re:That's a garbage lawsuit (5, Insightful)

parlancex (1322105) | about 2 months ago | (#47623591)

- so every second line consists of pixels from previous frames, but those are still pixels that are not the same as the ones in the current frame, the output has all of the 1920x1080 pixels in it, it's not like 2 lines of pixels are just 1 line stretched vertically. Technically Sony should win this.

That's a bit disingenuous. Could they render at 320x240 and stretch to fill so the output resolution is still technically 1080p and still advertise "1080p" support?

Re:That's a garbage lawsuit (1)

roman_mir (125474) | about 2 months ago | (#47623703)

Well, are the pixels that are 'filling up' the lines between the actual stretched lines are not just the same pixels from 320x240, then aren't those pixels unique in themselves?

Here is what I mean, take a 2x2 image, 2 lines total, have a 2x3 screen (3 lines total), output the first line from 2x2 image on the top, the last line from 2x2 image on the bottom and then fill the middle with pixels that are not even from this image itself. So now the question: how is that not giving you are 2x3 image? I mean the middle line there is not necessarily derived from information in the 2 lines in the 2x2 image. It's outputted onto the screen, the screen is filled with pixels.

The output is there, how the pixels were produced, by rendering a scene or by mixing and matching pixels somehow, technically that's a 2x3 image. It maybe that you don't like the resulting picture, but that's a different question.

Starting a class action lawsuit for not liking the product as much as you expected.... I don't think Sony should lose on this one, I mean they may lose, because in today's society you can sue and win for feeling offended, but other than nonsense like that, on the merits itself Sony shouldn't lose.

I mean if you don't like the product you can return it.

Re:That's a garbage lawsuit (2)

roystgnr (4015) | about 2 months ago | (#47623785)

What you're describing is what TV sets already do to display interlaced video. The reason why "1080p!" is an advertising point is because 1080i, even after interpolation, is inferior; that's why they weren't using that less-deceptive description to begin with.

I mean if you don't like the product you can return it.

If they don't like being sued for fraud they can stop committing fraud.

Re:That's a garbage lawsuit (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47624019)

Sony is a company, therefore they are good. They can employ anyone they want, just like I do. Sales is good. Fraud is a fabricated concept of the liberal nanny state and even so, it's a minor issue compared to the trillions of dollars of economic waste caused by frivolous torts, welfare, and basically any law or state function which doesn't benefit me and my business directly.

There, I saved you the trouble of replying, roman_mir. Now go out and run your business, you'd do a lot more good that way. I think. I mean, I don't know what your business is exactly, but apparently it's in dire straits or something, and I'd hate to see a business go under.

Re:That's a garbage lawsuit (1)

khellendros1984 (792761) | about 2 months ago | (#47624271)

We use 24 fields at 320*270, interlaced vertically and horizontally, to provide a true 1920x1080 resolution picture to our customers, with field updates at 60FPS. Never mind that the whole screen only updates 2.5 times per second; we believe that this provides a full-quality experience, avoids upscaling the image, and nicely lines our pockets with your hard-earned, sweet, sweet cash.

--No one, Ever.

Re:That's a garbage lawsuit (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 2 months ago | (#47623735)

Whatever happened to 1920x1200? When I need another monitor for the office, I always look for these, they are harder to come by nowadays.

Grab the BenQ BL2411PT. It comes with an 1920x1200 IPS panel. Also doesn't use PWM dimming, so no eye strain or headaches.

Re:That's a garbage lawsuit (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 2 months ago | (#47623743)

- so every second line consists of pixels from previous frames, but those are still pixels that are not the same as the ones in the current frame, the output has all of the 1920x1080 pixels in it, it's not like 2 lines of pixels are just 1 line stretched vertically. Technically Sony should win this.

Practically I hate the 1080p standard. Whatever happened to 1920x1200? When I need another monitor for the office, I always look for these, they are harder to come by nowadays.

Well, it's really upscaling to 1080p. Remember, Sony is advertising heavily that 1080p on the PS4 is better than the 1080p output of the Xbone. (Which it technically is, even though practically speaking most people won't notice the difference). Yet, the Xbone is hammered constantly because it cannot do 1080p versus the PS4, which can.

Especially since the Xbox 360 could do 1080p since practically the beginning (it has a scaler chip).

So if Sony argues it doesn't matter, it really throws out all their marketing that 1080p matters and gives Microsoft ammunition that hey, the Xbone's graphics are just as good.

As for 1920x1200, well, 1920x1080 is 16x9 which was long ago decided as a compromise resolution between TV's 4x3 and cinema's 2x1 or 2.21 anamorphic - it's a compromise that for a given screen size, 16x9 gives the largest letterboxed image for movies (~2-2.21x1), and the largest pillarboxed image for TV (4x3).

And 1080p monitors are highly common because economies of scale mean the video input processors and LCDs are stupidly cheap (since the timings and all that are well standardized), while finding one that does 1920x1200 means using a higher end chip that might go in say, a 2560x1440 chip which costs more money and more R&D time to get it to 1920x1200 (which is not a standard timing so someone has to go and figure out how to drive the LCD properly).

That said, they're NOT that hard to find. I think even Dell put them up fairly cheap nowadays (about $300 or so).

Or heck, just get a consumer 4K monitor (3840x2160). DisplayPort works fine for 60Hz, and they're pricey now, but dropping fast (under $600 on sale for a Samsung).

Re:That's a garbage lawsuit (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47623751)

No, to get 960x1080, every second *column* is filled with pixels from the previous frame, and those *are* pixels from the previous frame; Sony and Guerrilla's argument is BS, and that's what the guy's beef is: The game is not presenting 1920x1080 from the current frame, but only half that, and the blurring is degrading the image. As the part you quoted states: "The result is graphical performance that the lawsuit (and many reviews) call 'blurry to the point of distraction.'"
Also, 1920x1080 is a standard because it's 16:9 (the ATSC standard), not 16:10, which is what 1920x1200 is. Go ahead and buy 1920x1200 monitors, but TVs will either support the standard, stretch the 1920x1080 image to fit, or "letterbox" videos leaving black bars at the top and bottom.

Re:That's a garbage lawsuit (4, Insightful)

TypoNAM (695420) | about 2 months ago | (#47623755)

Killzone's multiplayer mode actually outputs natively in 960x1080 resolution, half of the 1920x1080 standard for "1080p." To output full 1080p graphics, this source image is fixed with a "temporal upscale" that fills in gaps with a horizontal interlace made up of pixels from the previous frame. The result is graphical performance that the lawsuit (and many reviews) call "blurry to the point of distraction."

Last time I checked that's called interlaced video, not progressive. Just because source video is 1080i, but goes out the HDMI video transmitter chip as 1080p it does not make it OK to call it 1080p since the source video is not progressive.

Re:That's a garbage lawsuit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47624359)

Horizontal interlace? Yeah, right... Shill some more, Sony troll

Re:That's a garbage lawsuit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47624363)

So all those DVD/Bluray players that say 480p output is guilty of false advertising when playing DVDs since the input format is 480i?

Re:That's a garbage lawsuit (3, Insightful)

SydShamino (547793) | about 2 months ago | (#47623795)

To output full 1080p graphics, this source image is fixed with a "temporal upscale" that fills in gaps with a horizontal interlace made up of pixels from the previous frame.

- so every second line consists of pixels from previous frames, but those are still pixels that are not the same as the ones in the current frame, the output has all of the 1920x1080 pixels in it

So..in other words, they advertised 1080p and are delivering 1080i, but presumably at a 1080p frame rate instead of the usual, faster 1080i rate.

I think you're trying to argue that it's still 1080, and it is, but it's still not what they advertised. No, this guy shouldn't be suing them. The FTC should be fining them for false advertising.

Re:That's a garbage lawsuit (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 months ago | (#47624193)

No, this guy shouldn't be suing them. The FTC should be fining them for false advertising.

Yes, he should be suing him, He is the consumer who was the victim of false advertising.
And Yes the FTC should be fining Sony.

Re:That's a garbage lawsuit (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 2 months ago | (#47623845)

You just described 1080i, which is not 1080p.

Re:That's a garbage lawsuit (1)

skirmish666 (1287122) | about 2 months ago | (#47623879)

- so every second line consists of pixels from previous frames, but those are still pixels that are not the same as the ones in the current frame, the output has all of the 1920x1080 pixels in it, it's not like 2 lines of pixels are just 1 line stretched vertically. Technically Sony should win this.

That makes it 1080i, not 1080p. If Sony's advertising this as 1080p technically they should lose. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I... [wikipedia.org]

Re:That's a garbage lawsuit (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 2 months ago | (#47624133)

Sounds like they reinvented interlacing, one of the great evils of the analog era.

Re:That's a garbage lawsuit (1)

khellendros1984 (792761) | about 2 months ago | (#47624175)

It's like a horizontally-interlaced version of 1080i, rather than 1080p. Imagine sweeping the view from left to right. Depending on the speed of rotation, there's a chance that the part of the screen that's under the even fields on one frame will be under the odd fields on the next frame. Overall, I'm sure it's better-quality than upscaled 960x1080p video would have been, but noticeably inferior to progressive-scan 1920x1080 video at 60fps (which is what Sony originally advertised it as, apparently).

I'm with you on the 1200-line monitors, though. The shape is much more pleasant than a 16:9 screen, and it can fit more information on it.

First world problems (0)

wiredlogic (135348) | about 2 months ago | (#47623537)

That's a serious first world problem he's got there.

Re:First world problems (3, Insightful)

nine-times (778537) | about 2 months ago | (#47623723)

Yes, it's a first-world problem, but at the same time, that doesn't excuse Sony (and Microsoft) for their false advertising.

Placed side by side with the worst atrocities in the world, all kinds of problems seem trivial. Still, they're problems. So you say "this guy has a serious first-world problem," and I say, "Isn't the world bad enough without companies like Sony and Microsoft piling on little bits of bullshit everywhere? Those little bits add up."

Re:First world problems (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47623963)

Someone has to deal with such problems, otherwise after a while it stops being so "First World".

Re:First world problems (1)

retchdog (1319261) | about 2 months ago | (#47624039)

Yeah, that's why he's using a serious first world solution, rather than the old school way of gathering a tribe to sack and torch Sony's headquarters.

Re:First world problems (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 2 months ago | (#47624355)

That's a serious first world problem he's got there.

Know what else is a first world problem? Bitching about first world problems on Slashdot.

Does not change the fact that Sony is making a bogus claim in their advertising claims.

Is it life threatening? Absolutely not. But it's still false advertising, which is still illegal.

I sued Ben Affleck..... (1)

tekrat (242117) | about 2 months ago | (#47623547)

.... Awwww, do I even need a reason?
If I sprain my ankle, while I'm robbing your place.
If I hurt my knuckles, when I punch you in the face!
I'm gonna sue, sue, yes I'm gonna sue!
Sue, sue, yeah, that's what I'm gonna do!
I'm gonna sue, sue, yes I'm gonna sue!
Sue, sue, I might even sue you! Ugh!

Re:I sued Ben Affleck..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47623791)

Unfortunately for your argument, it's Sony that's robbing its customers by not living up to the previews and the packaging.
Would you complain if you bought milk at the store and it was curdled sour gunk when you got home? Would you complain if you bought a music CD and there was only 3 tracks on it, instead of the 10 on the label? Would you complain if you bought a car, only to have it delivered to your house without wheels (Extra charge! Sign here!)
Sony is being sued for not living up to its promises, not for a burglar's injuries: Sony is the crook here.

Troll much? (4, Insightful)

Jahoda (2715225) | about 2 months ago | (#47623651)

Kind of a trollish headline, but both Sony and Microsoft have advertised 1080p as one of this generations' primary selling points - how is their continued inability to deliver upon this not false advertising, and how else are we to change their behavior if not through legal action? (Please don't say "boycott".)

Re:Troll much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47624381)

Console makers could argue that it is the games developers' fault.

False advertizing. (1)

penguinoid (724646) | about 2 months ago | (#47623659)

I too am sick of companies getting away with false advertizing of all kinds. (This wouldn't be a problem if it was simply a failure to develop according to plan, but they also advertize their resolution on the box.)

Not that hard (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47623693)

He now demands 'all economic, monetary, actual, consequential, statutory and compensatory damages' as well as punitive damages from Sony.

In other words, he wants to claim damages of absolutely nothing, and for that figure to be trebled. Thankfully for Sony, three times nothing is still nothing.

It is 1080P (1)

JDeane (1402533) | about 2 months ago | (#47623761)

The game does run at 1080P in single player, the issue is that the game does not run at true 1080P in multi player.

I don't really see the issue myself, as much as I dislike Sony they probably should win this one.

Besides the whole issue will probably disappear in a couple of patches.... (everything is in beta these days.)

Re:It is 1080P (1)

Zelucifer (740431) | about 2 months ago | (#47624029)

I'm confused. You're saying they're not delivering what they advertised, and yet they should win? How do you think that works.

The real deal (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 2 months ago | (#47623793)

What is this garbage? Make all games 1920x1080, 60 fps, low latency. The hardware is powerful enough to make even good-looking games with these specs if you want to.

Re:The real deal (1)

timeOday (582209) | about 2 months ago | (#47623909)

PC games really do (or did, I don't know) have the upper hand here. On the same hardware, you could run a higher resolution with less detail, or a lower resolution with more detail, your choice. Or on a "mega" system (including a low-end system from 5 years after the game was released), get high resolution AND maximum detail.

Is it just me or is the current gen of consoles really underwhelming, hardware-wise?

Re:The real deal (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 2 months ago | (#47624195)

It's a price issue. A high-end graphics card can cost as much as the entire console - margins are so tight, it's common for manufacturers to lose money on the consoles at times in order win market share and thus game licence money. They have to skimp on the hardware. Not many people are going to buy a PS3 if the XBox One is $90 more expensive, and vice versa.

Nintendo found a great solution: They have pathetically slow hardware and freely admit it, instead choosing to focus on genres that don't demand high performance and encouraging game asthetics that do not strive for photorealism.

Wait a sec.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47623849)

Does YIFY work for Sony?

Consoles are still crippled? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47623901)

Modern consoles still can't output a 1920x1080 image? Odd. The graphics card in my PC was pumping out 2560x1440 years ago.

I'm surpised it hasn't happened earlier (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47623931)

with the PS3 and all that, with only a few 2D games making the 1080p mark and the rampant fanboys that preach how true HD their upscaled games are.

Hope He Wins (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47624101)

These companies shouldn't be allowed to advertise whatever they want and not hold to it.

Hope Sony finally learns a lesson.

1080p VS 1080i (1)

phorm (591458) | about 2 months ago | (#47624317)

Essentially (as many others have already pointed out), they gave him a 1080i game - possibly at a crappier framerate than even real 1080i - while advertising 1080p.
It would be interesting to see how this pans out as I'm guessing this is pretty common for many games, and not just Killzone

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?