Right, but there’s nothing immoral about it either.
I live in a place where the rich pay their fair dues to the benefit of the less fortunate. That’s where I think you need to focus on getting, not slandering every successful company out of envy.
Thanks for the chat. You were nothing but respectful. Have a great weekend.
Why are they not allowed to create a good service and profit?
Why are the competition unable to take marketshare with lower fees?
It feels as if you have this number, >billion, makes a company evil. Why?
I agree with you that no single person needs a billion, but having earned it doesn’t make them bad. They innovate and move everything forwards. I’d much rather see my money with Valve than with EA, Activision Blizzard or any of the other faceless giants out there.
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.
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.