It seems like if what you’re showing is what you understand they find appealing and fun, then surely that’s what should be in the game. You give them that.
But instead, you give them something else that is unrelated to what they’ve seen on the ad? A gem matching candy crush clone they’ve seen a thousand times?
How is that model working? How is that holding up as a marketing technique???
I don’t remember having seen any actually successful lawsuits about this. There have been a few about the fake sale price thing etc, but I haven’t seen anything about these ads for games that don’t exist. Happy to admit I’m wrong if anyone has any proof, but as far as I’m aware, that’s never happened.
These games do end up adding mini games of the advertised game, but that’s not because they’re trying to cover their ass. It’s because the ads are for games they’re considering making, and if the ads do well, they know people will click to the store page. The next step is to build it as a mini game inside another game to get more data on engagement with the actual gameplay mechanics to see if people would actually play and keep playing the game. It’s much cheaper and more efficient to do that as a smaller part inside an existing game instead of building a whole new stand alone game. If they mini game does well, they may move it standalone, but if not, it may just stay as a part of the larger one depending on how much it costs to maintain there.