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.
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?
This is being blown out of proportion. These sorts of terms are pretty standard for a closed playtest, as it doesn't represent the final product and the developers don't want reviews to be published criticising things that will likely be fixed for the release version.
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.
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).
??? There's nothing in this wording that implies anything more than "don't negatively review us"
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?
Just black list people like a normal company - whoever i suspect they did this to revoke access during EA.
If I were forced to not say anything negative about a game, I would painstakingly refrain from saying anything positive as well.
"Do I recommend this game?..."
I mean most play tests let you say nothing at all. So not sure if this is better or worse.
It's worse.
Playtest results inhibit you from disclosing things because they are subject to change. They take gamers'feedback, decide if they want to act on it, and at the end of the day the finished product may look different so it makes no sense for people to loudly state "they have feature X, and they don't have feature Y" because by release it may be the other way around.
Whereas this type of contract says "idgaf what's bad about the game, you can only sing its praises online".
Silence > dishonesty.
No satire either??
So you can say nothing but praises for the game, but if they detect sarcasm, you're STILL getting sued?
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."