lawyers love to file lawsuit . Its thier job . T
1. It is subjective statement . Everything previous office release is subject to change it was stated by the devs may times.
2 Due Diligence is a phrase that’s commonly tossed around in the consumer world, but has a special meaning within the context of a legal dispute. In a broad sense, it refers to the level of judgment, care, prudence, and investigation that a person would reasonably be expected to do under particular circumstances.
If a consumer hasn’t done his/her due diligence, it could mean the difference between winning and losing a case, and will pose challenges to being able to dispute the contract terms or performance of the contract.
In the legal world, Due Diligence actually means a complete and appropriate review of documentation and facts by a party, before purchasing a good/service, or engaging in business with another party. It is a full and complete review using the advice of professionals as needed,
so that when one is done, one knows all there is to know, before buying or engaging in business.
Due Diligence IS NOT similar to kicking the tires on a car. Due Diligence IS similar to taking the car to a garage, having it checked out completely, and personally checking out every part that does not require the expertise of a mechanic.
source
So if you bough the game before December 10th you DID NOT due diligence because you DID NOT have all the info there for the consumer bares all "fault" if they are not satisfied or feel they were mislead.
3. Your subjective opinion.
You don't really seem to have a firm grasp on what "subjective" means. But first, you are right that #3 is my subjective opinion when I state something like the W3 was a $300 game. But just because an opinion is subjective, doesn't make it useless or invalid especially in this context. You wrote off people's frustrations by saying "so what" and I used my subjective opinion to show why people were justifiably frustrated, and also asserted that this is a common view held by many people as can be seen across the internet.
And with due diligence, you are 100% wrong here. You've simply defined what "due diligence" is and highlighted what is required of parties in the context of a commercial contract. As a lawyer, I can say with certainty you are confused about the difference in context. Again, if something is advertised a certain way, a consumer is under no obligation to verify the truthfulness of that claim. Using your analogy, if you sold me a car and told me it had a new transmission and only 100,000 miles and those statements were not true, you would be liable for fraud. I am NOT required to verify the truthfulness of your claims by taking the car to a dealership before purchasing. As another example, if I pre-purchase a vehicle being told that it will be a V8 and the final product when it hits the market is a V6, I am entitled to get my money back. I don't have to sit around and wait for reviews of the vehicle to surface after it hits the market and the true specs are then revealed. Again, this is the difference between relying on the representations of a seller in deciding to make a purchase and the obligations of parties in a commercial contract.
So you are flat out wrong here. If a company makes claims that a product will have a certain feature, I pre-purchase the product based on those statements, then the final product does not have such feature, that is fraud based on false or misleading statements. In case you were still confused, note Meriam-Webster's definition of false advertising:
"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."
Source
Thus regardless of a consumer's level of diligence, a consumer can have a claim in tort simply by virtue of the company making misleading or deceptive representations with the intent to promote the sale of goods. The consumer actually bears NO fault and has no duty to educate themselves beyond what is advertised. Again you are completely wrong on this point.
But of key importance is whether or not CDPR did anything misleading. I won't comment on the merits of any possible claim one way or the other other than by noting that many of the trailers and explicit statements made by CDPR do not appear to align with the final product. Not every piece of media or statement they put out was accompanied by a "things are subject to change" style disclaimer. So again you are wrong.
edited for grammar/typos
