As stupid as it is, it doesn’t stop a creator from simply demonstrating issues, without commentary. Just show people the issues and don’t remark on them.
That being said, nobody should sign this. Trying to forbid people from making satirical remarks? What the crap?
They literally can’t do that. Satire is a protected right under the first amendment. Anyone can make public satirical remarks regardless of signing that contract.
You are aware that first amendment protects speech from government actions/bodies only. It’s not something you can use against a private business (there are other laws for discrimination.)
The point of the contract is that if one is in breach the company can sue for damages and potentially remove the offending media.
The suing process would be through a legal body such as a court system, in this case federal court since the media is on the Internet, therefore the contract doesn’t hold any legal binding. No federal court would uphold a contract that violates the first amendment.
Contracts adhere to laws and rules just like any other legal document. You can’t just put whatever you want into a contract and have it be binding.
Sure, but that term does not violate the first amendment since the government didn’t stop you from saying it, so would hold up. You might be able to get it thrown out due to something else, you would need a lawyer for that.
That contract will have penalties for violations, and those are what you would be subject to if in violation.
That’s not how that works. The contract is in and of itself a violation of the first amendment. Therefore it has no legal binding. They wouldn’t be able to remove the offending media from any platform or sue for damages if someone breached the contract.
If there are internal ramifications due to a breach of contract that’s something that could be handled internally, such as the content creator not being offered any review materials in the future. But a contract wouldn’t be necessary for that either way.
Moreover, specifically for satire, there are whole acts in the law advocating for it. There is absolutely nothing, no clause or agreement that would ever prohibit someone from publicly satiring any given entity. Regardless of any contract.
Well that’s stupid. Getting negative reviews is also a good thing. It allows you to re-evaluate your product(s). Pretty much you’re going to sell a half assed product, pretending it’s amazing because you refused to take critically-negative feedback from your paying customers. Guess they just want to completely obliterate their company.
It doesn’t feel practical to enforce, save in so far as it lets them put you on a list of people not to extend future early-release games to. But you have to assume they were already doing that, as any marketing department worth its salt is going to have a boutique set of insider streamers who are effectively just contracted media flaks plugging your product.
On today’s episode of “This shouldn’t be legal”…
Think about it this way. The same guys who stream video game reviews to make money are paid by the advertisers who sponsor their streams. And the sponsor won’t pay for a stream if its disparaging of their content. So the streamer is being paid to cut an ad.
Imagine if you hired someone to go door-to-door selling people your sandwiches. And in the middle of each sales call the guys you hired would take a big bite, spit out the sandwich, and say “This is awful! I hate it!” What are you paying these asshole for?
Just stop pretending streamers are these independent objective observers and recognize them for what they are - online door-to-door sales guys. These early releases are just their sales kits. And why am I going to extend a sales kit to a guy who isn’t going to sell my shit?
By the contract, you couldn’t say anything detrimental about the game, so such a statement would still be forbidden. Whether such a vague limitation on what a content creator can say would hold up in court is a different thing.
In the context of a game, let’s say a clearly outdated graphics engine that everyone can agree on looks very dated. Or game-stopping bugs. Constant crashes. Etc.
My understanding is that Digital Foundry type of performance review is fine, but comments on how the control feels laggy or the game is a lower-tier copycat of Overwatch are not okay.
Not being able to make satirical comments about any game-related material would mean nobody could say something like, “Controlling Iron Man feels like fighting Jarvis for control of the suit”, or “Storm is as effective as a light breeze”
You might be right. This might not have been a mistake. Some creators in the Twitter thread said that they brought it up ahead of time but the company sent those agreements out as is anyway.
Oh, you want only good reviews? It’d be a shame if people reviewed your game like “I apologize, I have nothing to say - I am under contract to say nothing bad about the game, and I have nothing good to say about it either.”
Not bootlicking, just reading the letter of the law. I read this more as “don’t be a total dick about it” so I’d love to hear a contract attorney’s take on this.
There’s nothing in this wording that implies anything more than “don’t negatively review us”
It’s says subjective negative reviews. it seems if you say “It kept crashing” or “this feature wasn’t working” or “this feature was super bugged” those aren’t subjective.
All reviews are subjective by definition. Your examples are observations, not reviews. A review is my opinion of the product based on my experience. Like honestly, if you ever wrote a review about anything on Steam, or IMDB, or GoodReads or whatever, go find it and remove everything that’s subjective and see what you’ll end up with. Not like you’d be able to post it, because they require you give a score, which is inherently subjective.
There’s nothing in the definition of review that requires it to be subjective. It’s shocking that you didn’t even stop to look it up to first figure out if this is accurate.
I did and it does. For example the Merriam-Webster English Dictionary defines review as:
a critical evaluation
Whereas evaluation is defined as:
determination of the value, nature, character, or quality of something or someone
It’s subtle, but it’s in there. The examples you gave don’t fall under this definition, as they don’t determine anything, they’re just statements of facts. However the statement “this game is shit” is a determination of quality and thus a review. If you just stop for a moment and think about it, you’ll realise that it is impossible to determine the quality of a video game in a purely objective way.
you’ll realise that it is impossible to determine the quality of a video game in a purely objective way.
The only subtle thing here is the subtle change in your wording from simple “review” to “determine the quality.” I agree with you there, as whether you think something is good or bad is subjective.
But it appears you realize Im right, which is why you’re trying to reframe it. Why is it hard for you to admit you were wrong? It’s okay, no one is perfect.
I literally gave you a definition that says a review means to determine quality, I just assumed you would make the connection between that definition and the sentence you quoted, but apparently you’re too dense for that. The only error I made in this conversation is assuming that your reading comprehension is above that of a 3rd grader
I literally gave you a definition that says a review means to determine quality
“Or” do you really not know what that word means? Do you really not realize that when you cherry pick one part of a definition that it doesn’t mean none of the others apply?
Are.you really such an idiot that you don’t know this? Or is it just that you’re willing to be completely dishonest in defense of your ego?
And of course you don’t address the fact that I called out your reframing. Stupid and dishonest. Lol
You’re only strengthening my theory that you have absolutely no reading comprehension. Or you’re just trolling. Literally none of the things you just said make any logical sense whatsoever and I refuse to believe that anyone that passed elementary school can be so absolutely illiterate.
Please do tell me how if I wrote the whole definition there of “determination of the value, nature, character, or quality of something or someone” instead of shortening it to just “determine quality” it would make my entire point completely invalid.
And literally how can you look at my comment and, with straight face, say that I didn’t address your claim of “reframing”. It was all literally addressing it. But ok, you’re a moron so you might have not understood my point so let me put it in simpler terms:
Me show you the definition of word Me give an example Me refer to definiton to show example can be described with word You: that’s reframing
Please do tell me how if I wrote the whole definition there of “determination of the value, nature, character, or quality of something or someone” instead of shortening it to just “determine quality” it would make my entire point completely invalid.
You see that “or” in the definition? The word I already pointed out to you in the previous post? It does not mean “the one thing from this list that I get to pick because it makes me not wrong” it means “any of these things.” I can’t believe someone insulting me as “not having the reading comprehension of a third grader” needs this explained. It’s honestly hilarious. Although, can we appreciate for a second that you first said it was “subtle” but now are trying to argue that “it so obvious even a third grader would figure it out.” lmao. This is classic. Please keep it up.
Do you see how absurdly idiotic you’re being?
If I’m being absurdly idiotic, god help us because no way in hell we’re going to be able to come up with a term describe your stupidity. You’re not giving us nearly enough space to reach the depths of your stupidity if the fact that I understand what “or” means makes me “absurdly idiotic.” lol
I sort of saw it that way, but the last bit about “subjective negative reviews” seems unusual even for contracts.
There’s enough lazy rage bait “Turns out X is DOGSHIT?!?” videos out there that I don’t think it’s unreasonable to put some terms in expecting some professional effort. But disallowing even polite criticisms definitely seems too far.
The opinion of what is and isnt “subjective” is up for a lot of debate even if you dont personally have a major stake in a videogame’s marketing campaign (such as the authors and enforcers of these contracts).
The content creator agrees not to make public comments that are detrimental to the reputation of the game
Sounds pretty clear-cut, if you say anything bad about the game regardless of if it’s true or not then you’re in violation of this contract. That’s ridiculous.
They’re are actually saying you can’t criticize the game. Now, you tell me who is the arbiter of what is and isn’t “criticism”, because it never says constructive criticism isn’t criticism so presumably is also not allowed.
Ok regardless of whether or not you should be able to. Why the fuck would you? Wouldn’t it be in your ultimate best interest to recieve negative feedback early? So that it could be addressed?
i feel bad for the developers who worked on it because from what i played so far it looks like a surprising amount of love and care was put into the game. they didn’t need something like this at all to get generally favorable first impressions. shameful display from the suits who are always ready to ruin everything.
seriously, i was expecting a complete farce of a game considering it’s fucking NetEase but i was pleasantly surprised. the visuals, lighting and shaders, the particle effects, the UI, everything is so thoughtfully made and in line with the theme. even the alternate skins have “inspired by this comic issue” note attached.
Sounds pretty good. Personally i have no interest in Marvel stuff so its not up my alley, but i always like it when a fanbase gets something they enjoy. Have fun!
files.catbox.moe
Najnowsze