Class Action Connect offers lawsuit against Bungie for Halo's missing pixels

by Griffin McElroy { Dec 8th 2007 at 5:00PM }

Have you or someone you love been egregiously injured either physically or emotionally by Bungie Studios, whose mega-blockbuster Halo 3 displayed at an upscaled output of 640p, despite being advertised as displaying in full, 720p HD? Do feel like you've been cheated out of 80 pixels that you paid good money for? Has it been a while since you sued McDonalds for selling you hot coffee that you proceeded to pour on your genitalia?

You may be entitled to recover some of the precious funds you spent on the game, according to Class Action Connect, a site that allows possible plaintiffs to find class action attorneys to represent them for a number of different class action suits. It's like MySpace for lawyers! Just click the new lawsuit link, titled "Possible False Advertising: Halo 3 Is Not Native High Definition," and reap the rewards of our country's justice system.

After we successfully get an 80 pixel refund from Bungie, we'll being going on a suing spree of developers who didn't include things they promised would be in their games. Peter Molyneux, you might as well go ahead and start liquidating your assets.

Tags: Bungie, Halo, Halo 3, Halo-3, Halo3, Lawsuit

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)

Big Ed @ Dec 8th 2007 5:03PM

Your damn right I am! :P

Kevin Gass @ Dec 8th 2007 7:49PM

So does this mean I can sue From Software and Sega for not including Split screen multiplayer in Chromehounds? Cause that would be great cause that game took hours from my life :P

Dan @ Dec 8th 2007 8:42PM

People don't normally care about upscaling, they only ever seem to make a fuss when someone brings it up.

I imagine a lot of engines don't output native 720p, how else do you account for PC games giving you a choice of 20+ different resolutions, they are all just upscaled/downscaled versions of the engines native output... WHO CARES?! whether the upscaling is done by software or hardware, Halo3 will appear in 720p on a 720p TV, because that's how many pixels it has, and LCDs can only display ONE resolution...

neoalec @ Dec 8th 2007 11:11PM

PC gamers are used to inconsistent performance of their games. Us console gamers expect our games to conform to exact specifications. We've got three sizes: 480, 720, and 1080 -- pick one!

Spartacus @ Dec 8th 2007 11:54PM

neoalec,

Not exactly. Console gamers have 5 resolutions in the NTSC region alone: 480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i and 1080p.

Since 1080i is equivalent to 540p (in terms of pixel power, not appearance to the human eye) and is considered "HD", I'd say Halo 3 and CoD4's 640p is still worthy of the "HD" badge.

This suit is therefore RETARDED as well as unfounded.

mouminea @ Dec 10th 2007 5:11PM

Dan, excuse me? PC games are not "just upscaled/downscaled versions of the engines native output". A PC game engine renders the image at the resolution you tell it to - using the amount of pixels specified to create an image of those dimensions in real time. "Upscaling" means it takes a rendered image and adds filler pixels to smooth out a blown-up resolution. The difference in image quality can be very noticeable. Get your facts straight.

why not the LS2/LS7? @ Dec 9th 2007 3:17AM

1080i is not equivalent to 540p. It has twice as many pixels, just fewer frames per second. In a game that runs at 30fps or less (many do), there is no visible difference between 1080p and 1080i.

That's a long way from 540p.

bm @ Dec 9th 2007 5:24AM

"how else do you account for PC games giving you a choice of 20+ different resolutions, they are all just upscaled/downscaled versions of the engines native output..."

That's the most retarded thing I've heard all day.

Crono (NDF - Knight of the Old School) @ Dec 9th 2007 11:29AM

No LS, you're wrong again.

When a 1080i image is displayed, it shows you 540 lines 1 frame, and then a slightly different (even/odd field) 540 lines the next frame. As far as the technology concerned goes, 540p is the same as 1080i. 540p just shows the same frame field in the second frame instead of a different one.

1080i *looks* better than 540p only because you're brain can't process 60fps correctly. Your eye can really only detect 30 fps correctly. So 1080i looks HD because you're brain tells you it does, not because it actually is.

AirIntake @ Dec 9th 2007 1:18PM

In a 1080i image, there are 1920x1080 pixels on screen, 100% of the time. That is very much HD. How the pixels refresh has nothing to do with HD.

COV3RT SN1P3R @ Dec 8th 2007 5:07PM

I think this is stupid, but not for anything it is false advertisement which I think is illegal.

Mr. Objectional @ Dec 8th 2007 8:06PM

Exactly. It's not a suit over some feature they dropped, it's a suit over a feature they advertised that in fact doesn't exist.

JL @ Dec 10th 2007 11:41AM

And its not just 80 pixels. Its 80 lines of pixels.

1280x720 as advertised.

So thats over 100,000 pixels that were lost.

1280 pixels x 80 lines = 102,400 lost pixels.

Awesome.

jake11 @ Dec 8th 2007 5:07PM

why would anyone sue about something as pointless as this?

Magetto @ Dec 8th 2007 5:09PM

Why would any sue McDonald's for them getting fat, or spilling their coffee on themselves?

Money.

Chris @ Dec 8th 2007 5:29PM

"Why would any sue McDonald's for ... spilling their coffee on themselves?"

She sued them because the coffee was hot enough to cause third degree burns in 2-7 seconds. All she wanted was them to cover her medical bills, they offered her $800, she said no, took them to court, and was awarded $2.9 million, which was eventually reduced to $640,000. McDonald's had gotten over 700 complaints of burns from their coffee before this case, so it's not like they didn't know the coffee was too hot, they just knew it was easier to cover medical costs for a few people. Her burns were worse than most because she was wearing sweats that soaked the hot coffee up and kept it pressed against her genitals, thighs, and buttocks.

Undead Priest @ Dec 8th 2007 6:17PM

@ Chris

It's coffee. It's supposed to be hot. It was a pointless and frivilous money-grab lawsuit. She was not a victim.

h0mi @ Dec 8th 2007 6:46PM

700 complaints over a decade when Mcdonalds sold billions of cups every year.

jsn @ Dec 8th 2007 6:47PM

actually to add more facts to this. It was decided at some point years before this incident at what temp those industrial coffee makers would brew coffee. Whether it was intentional or not, that temp allowed you a few seconds to shake the coffee off before you would get seriously burned. Mcdonalds had learned that if they brewed their coffee hotter, it made a stronger smell, which in turn caused them to sell even more coffee. This temp was high enough that you were burned almost instantly if it came in contact with your skin. Which is why the person got burned as badly as they did. For years I said the same thing, "no shit, coffee is hot", but there was legitimacy behind the claim.

Brad Lee @ Dec 8th 2007 6:58PM

Legitimacy or not, you're still rewarding stupidity.

jsn @ Dec 8th 2007 7:08PM

your entire comment makes no sense. If it has legitimacy, then how is it stupid? That's like something a 12 year old would say.

They'd had complaints for years about their coffee being too hot. They'd paid off quite a few complaints about it, many with 2nd and 3rd degree burns, but it has stayed fairly in-house. Nobody elses coffee would burn you like that, just Mcdonalds. They knew it was unsafe compared to any other coffee you would buy, but they did it to increase sales. They brewed it about 20 degrees hotter than other coffee makers. The fact that they knew it was a risk and continued to do it made it completely legit and not stupid at all. They obviously believed that it was something that would go unnoticed and they could just out-lawyer this woman and they were wrong. They got what they deserved.

driven2sin @ Dec 8th 2007 7:09PM

how the fuck do people drink anything that causes 3rd degree burns.. hot pizza sauce fucks my mouth up

hegemonyhog @ Dec 8th 2007 7:10PM

Actually, you're not rewarding stupidity.

McDonald's defended themselves by saying they didn't believe the coffee was going to be consumed when the customer got it, instead waiting until they arrived at their destination. Their market research over several years showed that customers almost always consumed the coffee when they got it. McDonald's admitted the coffee was too hot for human consumption, and lied about why they served it that way.

There is no more misquoted or misunderstood case than the McDonald's case - particularly by those who think it was the plaintiff's fault.

LaughingTarget @ Dec 8th 2007 9:49PM

It had nothing to do with consumption, the clumsy woman spilled it on herself when she opened the lid IN A MOVING VEHICLE. Too hot or not, there was personal negligence that led to the events, therefore, frivolous.

hegemonyhog @ Dec 9th 2007 12:02AM

Uh, no.

There are certain normal risks you take when consuming coffee in a car. If you spill it on yourself, you'll stain your clothes and it'll burn a little bit. It shouldn't cause burns requiring skin grafts.

The negligence is on the part of McDonald's for serving something that destroys human skin - regardless of what behavior the customer took, the consequence was egregious.

If I drive over a glass bottle and my tire goes flat, suing for a faulty tire is frivolous. If I drive over a glass bottle and my tire explodes in a fireball, shearing off half my car and causing shrapnel to be lodged in my chest, suing for a faulty tire should result in a pretty large award against a negligent company.

That is, unless you think that coffee normally should cause third degree burns when it comes in contact with human skin.

Catprog @ Dec 9th 2007 1:24AM

I heard that the cup actually fell apart.

Rocketboy @ Dec 9th 2007 11:02AM

LISTEN. THE FOOD PRODUCT WAS SOLD IN A STATE THAT CAUSED 3RD DEGREE BURNS. No food products should cause deep tissue burns when sold. McDonalds realized the danger, and they raised the temperature that the coffee was sold anyways. I can't help it that you are an idiot, just try to listen to people that are smarter than you, and keep your mouth shut when the grownups are talking. You might make it thru life that way.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

Rocketboy @ Dec 9th 2007 11:08AM

"There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case. No one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is important to understand some points that were not reported in most of the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh and muscle."

"After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often
charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) "

"Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds
refused."

"McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700
claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the
safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185
degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above,
and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds."

"The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in
punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee sales.

Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.

The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 -- or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called
McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.

No one will ever know the final ending to this case.

The parties eventually entered into a secret settlement which has never been revealed to the public, despite the fact that this was a public
case, litigated in public and subjected to extensive media reporting."

Brad Lee @ Dec 9th 2007 3:09PM

Actually, jsn, your claim that I'm a 12 year old for having an opinion is immature.

My point is simply this. If the woman was driving with coffee in-between her legs and she spilled it, it doesn't matter how hot the coffee was, she was an idiot for putting the thing in-between her legs in the first place.

Now, some other posters have claimed otherwise, that she was not driving when the coffee was spilled. If that was the case, then it isn't rewarding stupidity. But even still, $600,000 for one person spilling coffee is a bit absurd.

If it was a class action lawsuit for all the people that were burned, then I could understand. But as it stands, a whole bunch of people were severely burned and one person out of the many hit the $600,000 jackpot. Don't you think that's a bit ridiculous?

Our legal system is too individual-focused, and too focused on getting the largest sum of money possible than in seeking justice. If you ask me, McDonalds should have been fined much more than $600,000, it just shouldn't have all gone to one person.

Cellien @ Dec 10th 2007 11:00AM

I like fresh hot food... I ate at a Mexican food place and they said "careful - the plate is REALLY hot"... Not thinking AT ALL, I touched the plate anyways and burned the shit out of my fingers. About the same as touching a hot skillet, my fingers were swollen, tender,and sore.. but no lawsuit from me. I for one enjoy fucking hot fresh food as opposed to everything served luke-warm after this insane "hot coffee lawsuit". I have a hard time believing this lady was so badly injured. If it was that hot, she should have felt the rolling boil vibration from inside the tiny coffee cup in her crotch and when she was handed the cup and processed that in her bird brain "maybe I should let it cool down".

Rocketboy @ Dec 12th 2007 9:26AM

So Brad, you did not bother to read the legal facts of the case, or are you just so obsessed with your viewpoint, that you are afraid that they might taint you? She was NOT driving. The lawsuit only was so high because McDonalds refused to believe that their INTENTIONAL selling of a beverage that was hot enough to cause deep tissue burns to your mouth and throat was not their problem. Also, after the JURY trial (you know, average people), the reward was REDUCED by the judge (you know, the actual court guy). Your argument is fail all around.

Greyseal @ Jan 10th 2008 7:55AM

"$600,000 for one person spilling coffee is a bit absurd."

I used to think the same... but it's not a matter of rewarding the plaintiff. McDonalds is a mega-corporation with ridiculous amounts of money. A more "reasonable" fine doesn't impact them, and they have no reason to change anything in the future. This is why large companies employ teams of actuaries... they've already planned to screw up now and then.

Greyseal @ Jan 10th 2008 7:55AM

jayeffaar @ Dec 8th 2007 5:08PM

This is stupid. What's advertised is that Halo 3 DISPLAYS at 720p, 1080i and 1080p (which are video signal formats) and that's completely true. As far as I know, there was never a claim that the game uses a 1280x720 framebuffer for rendering, which is a whole other thing.

Just because someone doesn't understand the distinction (or pretends not to) doesn't mean that Bungie was guilty of false advertising.

ill trooper @ Dec 8th 2007 6:38PM

Then a distinction in language might need to be made to clarify it. Ever had a 'Boston Kreme' doughnut or 'Krab cakes?' They have to misspell the words because they aren't using real 'cream' or real 'crab,' and it's for the benefit of the customer, to more accurately let them know what they're getting.

The gaming industry knows that the average joe thinks that the box is telling them the game is running at a full 720p. I wouldn't mind if games avoided implying they were running at higher resolutions than they actually are, by more directly saying "supports 720p televisions' instead of "HDTV 720p' written on the box.

FraGNeM @ Dec 9th 2007 3:21AM

Also, since scaling is done by the 360 itself, "supports 1080p" is not a feature of the game but the system.

Not all games advertise this, as they commonly list simply the native resolutions supported.

What's the point in listing "supported resolutions" if all 360 games auto-support 720p/1080i/1080p?

jayeffaar @ Dec 8th 2007 9:30PM

Except that the use of "Krab" in "Krab Cake" (or "Krab Kake"?) is clearly meant to imply there's crab in the cake when they know there isn't. All "720p" was ever intended to mean was that if you feed that signal into the input in the back of your HDTV that supports a 720p signal, you're going to see something on your screen. There's no intent to mislead anyone there. That's what it means.

Now, people are confusing the issue by saying the game runs at 640p, which is meaningless. There is no 640p video standard.

Project Ekim @ Dec 8th 2007 5:12PM

COD 4 does the same thing these people are idiots.

Dragod @ Dec 8th 2007 5:25PM

Bungie has more money than Infinity Ward.

Rob Accomando @ Dec 8th 2007 5:19PM

are you F'king kidding me?

I'm gonna sue Nintendo for letting you beat Super Mario Galaxy with 60 stars. I wanted to be ables to ONLY beat it after 100 stars Dammit!!

Anticrawl @ Dec 8th 2007 6:14PM

The difference here is false advertisment on Bungie/Microsoft's part. It is no different than saying your game offers Online Multiplayer only to find out the game has "no online multiplayer."

Now I think it's silly to file a lawsuit over such a thing but honestly the law should apply to everyone with no exceptions.

FredTheCat @ Dec 8th 2007 5:35PM

Actually it's not an 80 pixel loss, it's a 193,280 pixel loss. Remember that resolution in pixels is determined by multiplying the width by the height.

1280 TIMES 720 (HD 720)= 921,600 pixels
1138 TIMES 640 (Halo 3)= 728,320 pixels
Net loss of 193,280 pixels.

From the referenced linked article:
[*Note: We define "HD" as a resolution no less than 1280x720 pixels. According to the source, Halo 3 has a native resolution of 1138x640 pixels.]