Rockstar? More like CO-

Oh come on, let's not argue over the definition of a word here. It's an enforceable rule with sanctions for breaking it from a governmental authority. Likely there is a line in a piece of legislations somewhere that expressly forbids the practice but for the sake of defining one word in an argument it's really not worth the time going off to find it.

End of the day, they shouldn't be doing it, and they've taken steps to avoid penalty.

AU:

1:00
https://www.accc.gov.au/business/pricing/displaying-prices#two-price-comparison-advertising

US:
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retriev...h=L&mc=true&r=PART&n=pt16.1.233#se16.1.233_11

NZ:
http://www.comcom.govt.nz/fair-trading/fair-trading-act-fact-sheets/pricing/


And yes, let's not piddle about with semantics. If a government body can take you to a court of law and win, it's illegal. A judge is going to make a ruling, that ruling is going to set a precedent, bingo bango bongo, companies get in a lot of trouble when they start trying to sneak money out of people's wallets.

I will argue over the definition of a word til the end of time, especially when people are using those words to incite drama.

Though for the record Rockstar aren't the only ones at fault here - other companies have been doing the same. It would be nice to see these others get the same negative attention, instead of focusing on the easy pickings.

I did link to a reddit thread here which called out several companies for doing the same thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_and_Consumer_Act_2010
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Trading_Act_1986

Geers, pleaaaaaaaaaaaaaaase, you're better than this.

(digital marketplace is international, countries pass their own specific laws which products are beholden to only within those countries)

Well I made a silly booboo when I posted a definition without the actual word in question, but I fixed that.

However a business selling stuff in a country has to follow that country's laws. Do you think I can just set up a gun store in Texas and start shipping assault rifles to Coober Pedy?

The ACCC is still going after Valve and there's a Federal Court hearing on the 28th of July.

But valve does offer refunds now? =o

But the lawsuit started before the refunds, so Valve was still in violation of their laws when it was brought to court. They're a bit too late to save themselves.

Hey, more funny stuff.

http://steamed.kotaku.com/the-truth-behind-the-steam-summer-sale-controversy-1710941999

I think Rockstar didn't have to participate in the sale, but to sell extra, it is alright for them to offer the game at same price, for practically the preorder bonus.

I think it is more ridiculous to use computer logic function signs in arguements.

Using computer logic function signs != functional conversation usage

So basically, stupid loud steam users are being loud and stupid?

Yes I know but the important thing to take away from that is the first paragraph.

"The Australian Consumer Law applies to any business providing goods or services within Australia. Valve may be an American based company with no physical presence in Australia, but it is carrying on business in Australia by selling to Australian consumers, who are protected by the Australian Consumer Law".

it's not illegal in France and it pisses me the hell off.

Don't get me started on the French legal system. Seriously what the hell have you guys been doing for the last few hundred years?

FTFY

last 200* years....

repeatedly overthrowing the last government allthewhile keeping a dated Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.

and not writing up the Sixth republic to modernize a lot of concepts and wash out a lot of old.

but other than that I don't quite know what you mean?

the free health care is a problem? the taking care of the homeless is? the gay marriage? our texts being used as a basis for law in all of Russia and China since the 18th century?

Go ahead get started

what's the intention here?

I hope you guys take this as ironically as I do. It's shameful that nowadays people actually believe there is backroud substance to these jokes.

The Civil Code. Basically a money-printing licence for your lawyers. Why would you want to line the pockets of lawyers.

Because they're all lawyers?

oh yeah that. We know. We know it's gotten cumbersome and now bears senseless amount of words for a simple concept.

like I said, the problem is that we base it off texts that are severely outdated. as such we need amendments, and amendments to the amendments and on and on it goes. it's a mess.

we need a president to a serious new republic text that's (for once!) not based of the old. it'll take an overthrow. I doubt it'll happen.

as for the cash they make, the concept is to prevent corruption. It does work. all things considered our judges and lawyers are deemed the least corruptible in the world.

This is France we're talking about.

Speaking as someone who runs a UK company, those rules are most defiantly legally binding and yes a UK company can be prosecuted for breaching them. UK contract rules are quite strict compared to other parts of the world, which is a good thing imo.