• Bronzie@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    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
        arrow-down
        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
          arrow-down
          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.