Something went wrong. Try again later

Giant Bomb News

63 Comments

Sony Settles With FTC Over "Misleading" Vita Advertising

Consumers who purchased a Vita before a certain date are eligible for a small refund or product voucher.

No Caption Provided

Well, this one came out of left field.

Sony's decided to settle with the Federal Trade Commission after the group charged Sony with misleading advertising for the PS Vita. Consumers who purchased a Vita prior to June 1, 2012 will be eligible for a $25 refund or $50 "merchandise voucher."

Specific details will arrive over email in the future, as there's a chance the settlement could change.

The FTC took issue with how Sony pushed the Remote Play, "cross platform," and 3G features of the device. In the eyes of the FTC, the advertising suggested Vita owners could play a signifiant number of games over Remote Play (which isn't really true), it didn't spell out how "cross platform" play could require two copies of the game, and it wasn't clear 3G connections weren't fast enough for online multiplayer.

Here's how the FTC laid it out:

"The FTC's complaint against Sony charges the company with making false claims about the PS Vita's "cross platform gaming" or "cross-save" feature. Sony claimed, for example, that PS Vita users could pause any PS3 game at any time and continue to play the game on their PS Vita from where they left off. This feature, however, was only available for a few PS3 games, and the pause-and-save capability described in the ads varied significantly from game to game. For example, with respect to "MLB 12: The Show," consumers could only save the game to the PS Vita after finishing the entire nine-inning game on their PS3. In addition, Sony failed to inform consumers that to use this feature, purchasers had to buy two versions of the same game – one for their PS3 and one for the PS Vita.

The FTC's complaint also alleges that Sony's PS Vita ads falsely implied that consumers who owned the 3G version of the device (which cost an extra $50 plus monthly fees) could engage in live, multi-player gaming through a 3G network. In fact, consumers could not engage in live, multiplayer gaming.

The complaint further alleges that Sony also falsely claimed that with the "remote play" feature, PS Vita users could easily access their PS3 games on their handheld consoles. In reality, most PS3 games were not remote playable on the PS Vita. Sony also misled consumers by falsely claiming that PS Vita users could remotely play the popular PS3 game, Killzone 3, on the PS Vita. In fact, Sony never enabled remote play on its Killzone 3 game title, and very few, if any, PS3 games of similar size and complexity were remote playable on the PS Vita."

Patrick Klepek on Google+

63 Comments

Avatar image for dewdurttea
DewDurtTea

28

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Sweet. Thanks for the cash Sony. I'm just going to use it to buy more Vita games.

Avatar image for rydemption
Rydemption

69

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 1

I hope i dont require a reciept cuz that shit is long gone.

Avatar image for arturo2666
arturo2666

4

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Damn, I missed this by about a month. Oh well, it's not like I don't have 50 PS+ games I still have to play or anything.

Avatar image for zevvion
Zevvion

5965

Forum Posts

1240

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 2

Edited By Zevvion

I bought mine at launch. I never really felt mislead though. The price I pay for being informed on a product before dropping money on it.

Of course if I get the e-mail, I'd still take the $50 voucher. :D

Same here. I don't think anyone on this site doesn't understand technology properly to know that 3G wouldn't work for online play. Also, the cross platform play was more than clear to require two copies in most cases. It was the first thing people asked when they announced that feature, and I'm pretty sure they confirmed this immediately to be up to developers how they handle that stuff.

Not saying they shouldn't be blamed for not being absolutely clear to everyone right out of the gate instead of leaving room for interpretation, but getting sued over it seems a bit overly harsh in my opinion.

Avatar image for deactivated-62001d97f34e0
deactivated-62001d97f34e0

180

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

got mine day 1, thanks for the free money, even though im going to give it right back when i buy something from Sony.

Avatar image for kebrel
Kebrel

44

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I got mine on launch, but it wasn't the 3G version. Never felt mislead in fact I love the Remote play feature with PS4, never thought about looking in to PS3 remote play. Do only 3G customers qualify?

Avatar image for chaoticarsonist
Chaoticarsonist

62

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

I bought my in July of 2012.....

Avatar image for ssully
SSully

5753

Forum Posts

315

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

Heh, kind of funny. I actually remember the ads that led to this lawsuit, they were pretty misleading. Also what the hell is the point of the 3G version of the vita if you can't play online?

Avatar image for haruko
Haruko

571

Forum Posts

136

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 1

Edited By Haruko

I paid for the 3g for 2 months just to see and getting messages and updating software and uploading trophy data was neat but not worth a cent let alone $10 a month.