this post was submitted on 12 May 2024
1320 points (98.2% liked)

Games

32545 readers
2362 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

On today's episode of "This shouldn't be legal"...

Source: https://twitter.com/A_Seagull/status/1789468582281400792

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

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

If you're not willing to let the unexpected shit be public, don't do a public alpha test. That's the point everyone here is trying to make. Like, what are these streamers and content creators supposed to do when they run into a game-breaking bug, or they run into some mechanic they really dislike? Ignore it and hope no one notices, for fear of saying something "disparaging" about the game? Do you not see how unreasonable that is? We all understand that alphas are incomplete and will have bugs, and unexpected shit will happen. We all also have different opinions about what we like in video games. Them trying to hide from that, rather than just being upfront about it (like every other alpha or early access game I've ever played) is asinine.

They could do the alpha testing completely internally

They should do the alpha testing internally, if they're not willing to have their product be honestly reviewed, or pay to have their product advertised.

But I get why the company would do this and it’s really a complete non-issue.

Considering that this thread exists, Seagull's original tweet got the immense attention it did, and the studio announced hours ago that the particular clause everyone (except you) is taking issue with was a mistake that they're looking into fixing, uh, maybe it actually isn't just a "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.

No, actually, I don't think it's reasonable to expect "free publicity" on the condition that the ones providing that publicity muzzle themselves if they don't like the game. That's exploitative behavior by this studio. Expecting free anything and then attaching unreasonable legal stipulations that you know the other party cannot fight is unethical.

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.

They want to control the narrative around their unfinished video game, by trying to legally bully content creators, who have way less legal and financial leverage, into doing their bidding. That is unethical. Full stop, no I will not be taking any more questions.