binary solo said:
Semantically, this is a factually incorrect statement. There is no such product as an Xbox branded Destiny eau de toilette, so MS as not trying to advertise any such thing. MS was trying to advertise Destiny, using imagery and phrasing that did not breech copyright and trademark rules. And in terms of imagery (the bottle of Destiny perfume) they were fine. But in terms of their phrasing (Destiny is an epic new FPS) they crossed the line. Not really in a serious way, but the line was crossed and it's appropriate to stop using an ad that crosses the trademark or copyright line. Not so much because of any harm that the ad might do (which is no harm at all really in this case), but because if MS one day wants to have a go at someone for violating their copyright or trademarks the defendant could raise the Destiny ad, at least for PR purposes, to say, "well you've done it so pot meet kettle. You can give it out but you can't take it aye?" That sort of argument wouldn't fly in court, because one unprosecuted "crime" does not excuse another. But in the court of public opinion "you did it first" will always get traction and will cause some repuational damage. And of course just because Sony or Acti/Bungie won't take action, doesn't mean some bitter fanboy won't lay a complaint to some advertising standards body to try to embarrass MS by having the authority rule that yes, MS done wrong here. |
Don't give fans this idea.

duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."








