Game Dev Says Contract Barring 'Subjective Negative Reviews' Was a Mistake (arstechnica.com) 26
The developers of team-based shooter Marvel Rivals have apologized for a contract clause that made creators promise not to provide "subjective negative reviews of the game" in exchange for early access to a closed alpha test. From a report: The controversial early access contract gained widespread attention over the weekend when streamer Brandon Larned shared a portion on social media. In the "non-disparagement" clause shared by Larned, creators who are provided with an early download code are asked not to "make any public statements or engage in discussions that are detrimental to the reputation of the game." In addition to the "subjective negative review" example above, the clause also specifically prohibits "making disparaging or satirical comments about any game-related material" and "engaging in malicious comparisons with competitors or belittling the gameplay or differences of Marvel Rivals."
Mistake? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
"Oops, I accidentally bribed and rigged."
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. It is disappointment the crappy thing they tried did not work. "Regret" would imply some insight. I doubt that is there.
Don't the creators get some blame. (Score:2)
Seriously any game review content creator who is willing to sign that contract should not be reviewing games for the public.
Re: (Score:2)
"But getting preview access makes me feel important and validated! If I don't sign and be honest i'll be preview blackballed."
It's just 21st century Payola [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Seriously any game review content creator who is willing to sign that contract should not be reviewing games for the public.
The best one I saw ended with them saying "and now my review of marvel rivals", where the audio ends, and the text of the contract clause fades on screen for the last minute or so before the video ends.
Although I only watched that one in context of the awful contract, had I been watching for a review I'd say that most certainly got the point across!
If I had any interest in it, not only would this squash it, but show to me there is no need to watch future reviews as they will obviously have no new details.
It
Err... what's the problem here? (Score:2, Flamebait)
Who wants anyone to do reviews based on early alpha builds? If you're soliciting feedback from external parties, you want that feedback to come to you constructively rather than in the form of some Twitch streamer broadcasting, "hur dur. it sucks." Why is a non-disclosure/non-disparagement agreement such a controversy? (Unless, of course, the agreement extended to the final product post-release and not just reviews based on the alpha--if that is the case, then fuck the guys drafting that and you're absolu
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck off shill
Re:Err... what's the problem here? (Score:5, Funny)
Your request for a free pentest of your webpage has been reviewed and granted.
Results will be posted here for your convenience and everyone's entertainment.
Re: (Score:2)
This clause would make you a paid promoter and not a customer which requires you to notify that to your audience . Yes receiving the game for free is a form of payment.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is the implied request to shill for them. They didn't want game reviewers, they wanted free influencers.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, no subjective negative reviews (Score:3)
Your game objectively sucks.
I don't see a problem (Score:5, Insightful)
I understand why, but really for an alpha the request should be "no reviews at all, the game isn't ready yet".
Re:I don't see a problem (Score:4, Informative)
We still haven't learned from Outpost: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Initial reviews of Outpost were enthusiastic about the game. The American version of PC Gamer rated the game at 93%, one of its highest ratings ever for the time. It was later made known that the reviewers had in fact played beta versions of the game, and had been promised certain features would be implemented, but never were.
Re: (Score:2)
I understand why, but really for an alpha the request should be "no reviews at all, the game isn't ready yet".
Alpha? Isn't that like a 2.0 release in today's gaming world. Rush out the door and worry about finishing it later.
"Creators" (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Creators is a common term used for people who upload videos to YouTube. I think "influencer" is more of an Instagram/TikTok thing. This terminology makes sense since long-form video game reviews are more popular on YouTube.
Re: (Score:2)
Took a couple readings to understand "creators" here referred to streamers and influencers, not game creators. Maybe "recyclers" or "public facing playtesters" or "paid mouthpieces" or "downstream marketing opinion engineers" here.
From the context it was pretty obvious they meant "reviewers". That's the brilliance of the English language, it's so fault tolerant that you can use the wrong word and people still sausage the sentence.
Developer vs Publisher (Score:1)
We're sorry! (Score:1)
(That we got called out)
The truth is out there. (Score:2)
Just no one wants it. No one is interested in honest opinions anymore. It's all got to be positive, a marketing stunt. If you're being negative, your immediately denounced and cancelled.