If it’s still in alpha, then a standard non disclosure should be fine.
A non-disparagement clause is overkill.
We aren’t talking about something in production, like this app, we are talking about play testing a game in alpha. I would be upset if this was in a released game, or even like the beta test, but if it’s still under serious development it seems incredibly reasonable to me.
CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 months ago
EatATaco@lemm.ee 4 months ago
I could agree that it’s overkill, but that doesn’t warrant the outrage we’re seeing here.
applepie@kbin.social 4 months ago
There is an idiom about the Forrest and the trees. You don't appear to see the Forrest?
EatATaco@lemm.ee 4 months ago
It’s an alpha product we’re talking about. It’s not me who’s missing the forest for the trees.
A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 4 months ago
It’d be a lot more reasonable if they simply said “No public discussion of this game, period”
Trying specifically to squelch the negative comments so any positive comments can go unchallenged is bullshit and entirely unreasonable.
EatATaco@lemm.ee 4 months ago
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.
A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 4 months ago
, they shouldnt be releasing it to streamers and youtubers to play, in alpha, on their goddamn channels, while muzzling them in hwo they can respond to issues that present themselves during their video/stream, if they want to “protect” (shut down any legitimate criticism concerns) their “alpha” (free advertising)
EatATaco@lemm.ee 4 months ago
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.
JoMiran@lemmy.ml 4 months ago
The problem is that unless the agreement explicitly states that the non-disparagment section applies only to the test playtest, the agreement would essentially place a gag order on that creator for the life of the game.
EatATaco@lemm.ee 4 months ago
Sure I agree that would be wrong. But I also think that would be unenforceable.
JoMiran@lemmy.ml 4 months ago
What makes you think that? The language is fairly boiler plate and easily enforceable. We, “the company”, give you, “the creator”, an asset, “a free game copy”, under the condition that you promise not to do or say anything that could diminish the value of the asset. Not only is it enforceable, it leaves room for compensatory damages if you are found in breach of contract.
EatATaco@lemm.ee 4 months ago
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.
ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml 4 months ago
But it’s just the playtest that is free, not the actual game itself? If they are giving the playtest AND the actual game for free then yeah that makes more sense, but otherwise I think it would likely be considered unconscionable for playtest access to mean they can’t criticize the game they paid for, and thus it would likely be unenforceable.
Vespair@lemm.ee 4 months ago
A general NDA is reasonable, sure, but allowing only comments which glaze the game but not those which criticize it is not. I genuinely cannot even fathom how you think the contrary; I don’t mean that in offensive, so if you can articulate why you believe that way I would like to try and understand.
EatATaco@lemm.ee 4 months ago
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.
rockSlayer@lemmy.world 4 months ago
I work for a video game company, and I promise you’re being far too generous about their motives. This NDA prevents press from doing press. If the alpha is bad, they’re not allowed to say how or why it’s bad, at all.
EatATaco@lemm.ee 4 months ago
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.
reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 4 months ago
I can’t help but think that if this sort of thing proliferates that it will essentially hamstring reviews. This particular agreement might be just because the game is in alpha, but it’s part of a broader trend of ToS/EULA wishlists that are so restrictive that they’re probably illegal already buy in order to test that you have to go to court against a huge, overpaid legal team which leads to people having their basic rights violated.
EatATaco@lemm.ee 4 months ago
This is a slippery slope fallacy “if they are allowed to do something mild and legal now. . .well, it will just lead to terrible violation of our rights in the future!”
What undermines your point is that if they try to put these illegal restrictions on many people, violating their basic rights, then they are opening themselves up to large class action lawsuits.