Attached: 1 image
#Ubisoft just added Denuvo to #AssassinsCreedMirage via a day-1 patch a few minutes ago. AFTER all the major reviews went online. Sincerely: Fuck off.
The point is, the reviews represent a game that’s not the one being sold. Additionally, it’s reasonable to believe this was done on purpose. This should be simple to understand ?
You know what’s simple to understand? False advertising. They’re not advertising the game as “no Denuvo!!” and then putting in denuvo. A completely independent company doing a review isn’t the publisher doing advertising.
Of course it is.
Them sending a copy of a game in the hopes the media outlet will write a favourable review is marketing 101.
It’s practically free marketing, so it’s the best kind even.
If the review came after launch from a purchased copy, then your argument would have had a leg to stand on mate.
By your logic, if I release a drug not mentioning it will kill you while knowing it will, I am not guilty of false advertisement even if I send it out for free knowing this will be published.
Murder sure, but not false advertisement.
If a game is being sent out without a performance limiting software with a clear plan of introducing this for the retail version, I would argue it follows the actual definition.
Quote: «the crime or tort of publishing, broadcasting, or otherwise publicly distributing an advertisement that contains an untrue, misleading, or deceptive representation or statement which was made knowingly or recklessly and with the intent to promote the sale of property, goods, or services to the public».
It’s deceptive. There is no arguing it. You seem like a bright dude arguing a moot point in to deep to accept being wrong.
I’m not wrong though, which is why I won’t accept it. They didn’t publish an advertisement. End of story. It’s shady as shit, but it’s not false advertising because they didn’t advertise anything here, let alone “no denuvo!”.
Actually this guy is correct: What Ubisoft is doing here isn’t false advertising, it’s fraud.
False advertising is a very specific thing: You say something that isn’t true in an ad or as part of your product’s packaging. Like saying your product has a USB C port when in reality it has a Micro USB port and comes with an adapter. Companies that pull stunts like that rarely have legal consequences but technically it is against the law (why there’s not usually legal consequences is because most retailers will refund a product within 30 days without any penalty to the consumer).
Ubisoft is giving reviewers a different product than what they’re planning on giving to consumers. It’s like going to a car dealership, test driving a car, ordering that model, then when it finally arrives it’s a completely different car (e.g. smaller engine, different/weaker/flawed parts, etc). Case law is filled to the brim with scams like this. It’s one of the oldest and most widely-repeated types of fraud that’s ever existed: Bait and switch.
Denuvo has an impact on performance for many games, so they artificially inflated the performance, and some people don’t buy games with Denuvo on principle, many reviewers will note that in their video.
You’re arguing over semantics. Legally it’s not false advertising but it effectively is. You’re both talking past each other but only one of you is being stubborn for the sake of it. I’d have little patience for you too.
Where is the false advertising?
None of the reviewers experienced the game with Denuvo. Reviews are a form of advertisement (good or bad)
That’s not how it works. Someone else reviewing your product isn’t advertising by you.
Providing a deceitful product for your reviewers before publication is kinda exactly that.
They’re not advertising anything.
The point is, the reviews represent a game that’s not the one being sold. Additionally, it’s reasonable to believe this was done on purpose. This should be simple to understand ?
You know what’s simple to understand? False advertising. They’re not advertising the game as “no Denuvo!!” and then putting in denuvo. A completely independent company doing a review isn’t the publisher doing advertising.
Of course it is.
Them sending a copy of a game in the hopes the media outlet will write a favourable review is marketing 101.
It’s practically free marketing, so it’s the best kind even.
If the review came after launch from a purchased copy, then your argument would have had a leg to stand on mate.
False Advertising has a definition, and that ain’t it. Someone else doing “free advertising” for them isn’t false advertising by them.
This isn’t rocket science. They’re not doing any advertising saying it has no denuvo.
By your logic, if I release a drug not mentioning it will kill you while knowing it will, I am not guilty of false advertisement even if I send it out for free knowing this will be published.
Murder sure, but not false advertisement.
If a game is being sent out without a performance limiting software with a clear plan of introducing this for the retail version, I would argue it follows the actual definition.
Quote: «the crime or tort of publishing, broadcasting, or otherwise publicly distributing an advertisement that contains an untrue, misleading, or deceptive representation or statement which was made knowingly or recklessly and with the intent to promote the sale of property, goods, or services to the public».
It’s deceptive. There is no arguing it. You seem like a bright dude arguing a moot point in to deep to accept being wrong.
I’m not wrong though, which is why I won’t accept it. They didn’t publish an advertisement. End of story. It’s shady as shit, but it’s not false advertising because they didn’t advertise anything here, let alone “no denuvo!”.
Ok
Actually this guy is correct: What Ubisoft is doing here isn’t false advertising, it’s fraud.
False advertising is a very specific thing: You say something that isn’t true in an ad or as part of your product’s packaging. Like saying your product has a USB C port when in reality it has a Micro USB port and comes with an adapter. Companies that pull stunts like that rarely have legal consequences but technically it is against the law (why there’s not usually legal consequences is because most retailers will refund a product within 30 days without any penalty to the consumer).
Ubisoft is giving reviewers a different product than what they’re planning on giving to consumers. It’s like going to a car dealership, test driving a car, ordering that model, then when it finally arrives it’s a completely different car (e.g. smaller engine, different/weaker/flawed parts, etc). Case law is filled to the brim with scams like this. It’s one of the oldest and most widely-repeated types of fraud that’s ever existed: Bait and switch.
Denuvo has an impact on performance for many games, so they artificially inflated the performance, and some people don’t buy games with Denuvo on principle, many reviewers will note that in their video.
That’s not false advertising by the developers/publisher.
Fuck off with your corporate shilling
Imagine being so dumb you think that correctly pointing out when something isn’t false advertising is “corporate shilling” 😂
You’re arguing over semantics. Legally it’s not false advertising but it effectively is. You’re both talking past each other but only one of you is being stubborn for the sake of it. I’d have little patience for you too.