• Hadriscus@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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 ?

    • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Bronzie@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • Bronzie@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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!”.

              • Bronzie@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Then I suggest you stop talking about rocket science until you gain the ability to see the world in a bit more of a nuance mate.

                Have a great weekend!

                • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  By “more nuance” you mean “ignore meanings of words and terms”, right?

                  If you didn’t advertise something you didn’t do false advertising.