I never mentioned anything to do with law. While I definitely don't think Re-Logic has any legal obligation to stick to their release target, I don't think they have a 'PR' (let alone moral) one either, which was the point I was trying to make. However, if you want to approach this from a legal perspective, I'll play ball: maybe that'll make my stance more clear.
"Current target delivery" consist of three words: current, target and delivery.
- Current: as of this moment, i.e. susceptible to change.
- Target: an intended goal to reach, i.e. an endeavour, no complete and utter certainty of success.
- Delivery: the time period in which a product is to be publicly available.
So what "current target delivery" means is "the time period that
as of this moment we are
intending to have the product publicly available". It doesn't mean "the time period at which the product will definitely be available". If Re-Logic meant to say that,
they would've used words that meant that (like "definite release date"). So the allegation that Re-Logic promised that 1.3 would without question be released in Q2 of 2017 simply isn't true.
As for how you chose to fill in the terms "misleading" and "reckless" in your false advertisement allegation, it is rather ironic how you did look up the definition of "false advertising" in the Merriam-Webster, but not the words contained within the definition itself (and then proceed to misuse them):
- Misleading (legal definition) means "to cause to have a false impression", which is not applicable here because the impression given was "we are planning to release in Q2" (which was true), and not "we will release in Q2".
- Reckless (again, legal definition) means "characterized by the creation of a substantial and unjustifiable risk to the lives, safety, or rights of others and by a conscious and sometimes wanton and willful disregard for or indifference to that risk that is a gross deviation from the standard of care a reasonable person would exercise in like circumstances" which, while quite a mouthful, is not applicable either because this whole matter has nothing to do with "gross deviation from a standard of care", and there is no risk (at all, let alone substantial) to the rights of others (you don't have a right to a correctly estimated release period). Claiming a new, untested foodstuff you brought on the market is healthy without having done (or there being) any research into affirming that (or the opposite) is reckless, because it A) creates a substantial and unjustifiable risk to other people's health by providing something with unknown (i.e. potentially adverse) health effects, B) is done consciously, and C) deviates from the standard of care of reasonable people (a reasonable person wouldn't bring an untested foodstuff on the market). Supplying a release date estimate, even if wildly unrealistic, is not reckless by any measure.
Disregarding semantics, however, you were by no means forced to buy a copy
before the update actually arrived (you weren't forced to buy a copy at all, but never mind that). You were at full liberty to wait until the update was ready and rolled out before choosing to buy another copy (for no additional cost if you chose to wait, I might add). Yet you
chose to buy a copy of a product, you knew
exactly what the product contained (1.2.4, not 1.3 at that point) and both parties (yourself included, otherwise you wouldn't, or at least shouldn't, have gone through with it) considered your half of the transaction to be
worth that. If Re-Logic had said that what you were buying was a full working copy of 1.3, then yes, that would be false advertising, but you knew that what you were buying at that time was
not a copy of 1.3. Furthermore, the promise (by lack of a better word) of getting 1.3, let alone on or by a specific date (which, as we have already established, was never the case) was
not factored into that transaction: you were not buying a license to 1.3, you were buying a copy of
Terraria 1.2.4 as-is, which was fully playable for all means and purposes. If you did not consider the money you had to pay for that sans 1.3 worth it,
you should never have gone through with the transaction. That goes beyond the discrepancy of "what you are buying" and "what you
think you are buying" (because there was no discrepancy there, you knew exactly what you were getting), that is a discrepancy of "what you are buying" and "what you
wish you were buying", and that's hardly Re-Logic's fault.
If you think you have a strong case to sue Re-Logic for false advertising, then of course you can always do just that. But, even though I'll admit to neither being a judge or a lawyer, I do think it'd be a waste of time and money for both sides.
ing Kickstarter project it's terraria. A major achievement in indie gaming as a whole.
