Komentarze

Profil ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.

EatATaco, do games w Marvels Rivals requires creators to sign a contract that removes your right to give a negative review in order to access the playtest

Marvel want free bug testers, and to get the hype train moving - but don’t want to pay for actual testers who work quietly, and want only positive commentary. Marvel want an astroturf campaign to push preorders, not actual genuine discussion or bug testing.

Okay, then the problem is with the people doing the work for free, not with Marvel realizing that people will do it for free.

The issue is that the people who do this work for free are not like you, and want that early access. . .either for strictly personal reasons or because it benefits them financially (such as is the case with streamers).

EatATaco, do games w Marvels Rivals requires creators to sign a contract that removes your right to give a negative review in order to access the playtest

Your game isn’t actually ready for alpha

Alpha testing is, by definition, testing on unreleased code. Even though they are offering the testing to some select group of people, it’s still considered un-released.

The only reason you’d make someone sign a legally binding document saying “you’re not allowed to say bad things” is because you know there are bad things to say.

False dichotomy. There is also the possibility that you realize, from experience, that when you start introducing users, unexpected shit happens.

They could do the alpha testing completely internally, or they could give some super fans pre-access with more restrictions on what they are allowed to say. Would I prefer they be able to speak their mind? Of course. But I get why the company would do this and it’s really a complete non-issue.

Sure, they could do an NDA, or they could also get free publicity. It’s reasonable for them to choose the latter, and if you don’t like it, it’s reasonable for you to wait for release.

Preventing people from talking about the bad things won’t magically get rid of the bad things.

Yeah, that’s pretty clearly not the point. They presumably want to fix the bugs without them counting against them in the court of public opinion.

EatATaco, do games w Marvels Rivals requires creators to sign a contract that removes your right to give a negative review in order to access the playtest

I agree with you. But this is basically a non-issue, which is my point. If you don’t want to be restricted, don’t play the alpha. Why is this so hard for some people to accept? Again, we aren’t talking about a released product, but some playtesting.

EatATaco, do games w Marvels Rivals requires creators to sign a contract that removes your right to give a negative review in order to access the playtest

The CRFA.

EatATaco, do games w Marvels Rivals requires creators to sign a contract that removes your right to give a negative review in order to access the playtest

I understand exactly why they are doing it; what you say comes as no surprise. It’s 100% part of my point.

Coming from software development, including a small amount of game development, I understand how trash alphas can be, especially if you introduce users/players. So it seems reasonable that if the point of the alpha is to flush these bugs/exploits out, which is the point, then restricting the players who are allowed in from disparaging a far from complete game is not some ridiculous overreach everyone here seems to want it to be.

EatATaco, do games w Marvels Rivals requires creators to sign a contract that removes your right to give a negative review in order to access the playtest

Protected by the law.

EatATaco, do games w Marvels Rivals requires creators to sign a contract that removes your right to give a negative review in order to access the playtest

Sure, more reasonable and fair. But this is neither unreasonable nor particularly unfair, as long as it’s restricted to the alpha. If you find it bad, don’t play it, and understand that what opinions come out of alpha are biased by this. I would recommend taking all reviews that come out of any alpha with a huge grain of salt.

EatATaco, do games w Marvels Rivals requires creators to sign a contract that removes your right to give a negative review in order to access the playtest

Of course, you could make arguments against the terms being overreaching in court, but not many creators have the resources or desire for a legal fight.

This is what I mean by unenforceable.

EatATaco, do games w Marvels Rivals requires creators to sign a contract that removes your right to give a negative review in order to access the playtest

You’re the one getting worked up over not being able to consume a product in its alpha state without agreeing to some non imposing rule.

I’m simply not going to join the alpha.

If anyone here is desperate to suck at the teet of a corporation, it ain’t me.

EatATaco, do games w Marvels Rivals requires creators to sign a contract that removes your right to give a negative review in order to access the playtest

It’s an alpha product we’re talking about. It’s not me who’s missing the forest for the trees.

EatATaco, do games w Marvels Rivals requires creators to sign a contract that removes your right to give a negative review in order to access the playtest

I haven’t read the entire agreement, so I don’t really know nor do I care to. But I suspect that it would squarely fall under protected speech once the game has gone public and they’ve “purchased” it.

EatATaco, do games w Marvels Rivals requires creators to sign a contract that removes your right to give a negative review in order to access the playtest

I agree that it should just be an NDA to be the most fair. But keep in mind I’m responding to someone who is claiming this is beyond egregious and that there should be laws against this.

It’s just not a big deal. It makes sense for them to say that you can’t disparage the game, because it’s in alpha, but why would they restrict good press? If you find this to be disagreeable, it’s alpha and you can just wait for release.

While I find it disagreeable, I don’t see anything to be outraged over, as avoiding it is as simple as not playing a game in alpha.

Unlike the mcdonald’s example where it is actually a released product.

EatATaco, do games w Marvels Rivals requires creators to sign a contract that removes your right to give a negative review in order to access the playtest

I could agree that it’s overkill, but that doesn’t warrant the outrage we’re seeing here. IMO of course. If this is really offensive to you, just wait for release. Considering it’s FTP so this doesn’t apply as much, but I would recommend even waiting until way after release to buy a game.

EatATaco, do games w Marvels Rivals requires creators to sign a contract that removes your right to give a negative review in order to access the playtest

Sure I agree that would be wrong. But I also think that would be unenforceable.

EatATaco, do games w Marvels Rivals requires creators to sign a contract that removes your right to give a negative review in order to access the playtest

If you say “x and y is broken it not implemented yet” that’s an objective negative review.

  • Wszystkie
  • Subskrybowane
  • Moderowane
  • Ulubione
  • krakow
  • test1
  • giereczkowo
  • rowery
  • Spoleczenstwo
  • Psychologia
  • Blogi
  • muzyka
  • slask
  • nauka
  • sport
  • lieratura
  • antywykop
  • fediversum
  • motoryzacja
  • FromSilesiaToPolesia
  • Technologia
  • Cyfryzacja
  • tech
  • Pozytywnie
  • zebynieucieklo
  • niusy
  • esport
  • kino
  • LGBTQIAP
  • opowiadania
  • turystyka
  • MiddleEast
  • Wszystkie magazyny