On hienoa, ett? kiinnit?t niin yksityiskohtaista huomiota pelin alkuper??n. Nyky??n asia on mielest?ni monimutkaisempi.
Periaatteessa n?m? kaksi eiv?t t?sm??:
Tuote, jonka kasino osti virallisesti Playsonilta, on ensimm?inen linkki - virallinen artikkeli
Toinen on luultavasti peli, jota voi pelata ilmaiseksi ja joka paljastettiin virallisella verkkosivustolla - n?yttelykappale
Lis?ksi ensimm?inen linkki liittyy tiettyyn peliistuntoon - ID, toinen on melko yleinen muoto.
Suoraan sanottuna pelin todistaminen vain kopioksi virallisesti lisensoidusta tuotteesta on melko monimutkaista, emmek? mek??n pysty havaitsemaan p??llekk?isyyksi? ilman pelintarjoajan ohjeita. Linkit eiv?t ole en?? kelvollinen tunnistamismuoto. Sik?li kuin voin kertoa, kopiot tunnistetaan yleens? pelin aikana n?kyvien erojen perusteella.
Onko se sinusta j?rkev???
It's great you're paying such detailed attention to the game's origin. These days, the matter is more complex, I believe.
Basically, these two won't match:
The product that the casino officially purchased from Playson is the first link - the official article
The second is probably a game that can be played for free and was revealed on the official website - an exhibition piece
Additionally, the first link is associated with your specific game session - ID, the second is a rather common format.
Frankly, proving the game is just a copy of an officially licensed product is quite complicated, and even we are not able to spot duplications without the game provider's guidance. Links are no longer a valid form of identification. As far as I can tell, copies are usually identified by the differences shown during gameplay.
Does it make sense to you?
Automaattinen k??nn?s: