Well, if you have access to an alpha version, you’re basically a tester. It makes no sense to do anything like a review on an alpha version.
Also it’s very common to have NDAs at that stage
The last closed alpha I was in had watermarks appearing all over the screen constantly with an id to link back to you
I disagree, people provide helpful reviews for closed beta games all the time. These help inform users on the trajectory of the development, core aspects of the story and main gameplay loop.
If you’re exposing your game to the public, public opinion is expected and deserved.
In the article it says it’s a closed alpha. That’s not exposing it to the public.
Thats like reviewing chicken dinner before its fucking cooked. “Gee Bill, this chicken is really rubbery and gave me salmonella, I really think it’s going in the wrong direction. 3/10” jesus fuck we gotta review everything these days??
I mean, that’s a fair criticism in a way. If Bill lets you taste the chicken at that point, it’s reasonable to comment on what he let you taste. If he didn’t think it was ready enough to get your opinion on, he shouldn’t have let you taste it at all.
It’s more like inviting someone into the kitchen when dinner’s going to be done soon to provide feedback towards the finished meal.
Taste this, does it need more salt, more time in the oven, what should I garnish with, etc.
If the taster starts doing an influencer food review in the kitchen commenting on the understated food that needs more time in the oven and doesn’t even have a garnish, they’re missing the point.
On the other side, look at BG3, which was able to incorporate fan feedback and make a superior game than they would have.
Exactly. I do believe the studio should have communicated that better, though. Or maybe they did and some people decided to gripe anyway
Alpha and beta aren’t really the same though. Alpha is meant to be unstable and feature incomplete while beta is supposed to be simply missing polish. For Alpha reviews to have real value they need to provide that context. Otherwise, it’s just an exercise for the reviewer
Lol Alpha tests are rarely for what they should be, which is testing core features of the game not yet finished. In reality, it’s used to excuse negative aspects they have no plans of fixing.
Fuck em. Talk shit if you feel inclined to. Making you sign a contract otherwise is the peak of insecurities.
Sometimes Alpha has functions/features not being disclosed to public to keep some sort of advantage over another competitior release, and so an NDA is normal practise. I just had one in march for a software that has been around 40 years, i can’t discuss or disclose any of its features until june. personally I would think telling customers the new stuff coming is a great selling feature, but there is industrial espionage so everytging is hush hush till release day
An NDA is fine, a clause to restrict “disparaging remarks” is not. If you can’t say anything there’s no need for such a clause.
Only bad games are afraid of reviews of their alpha versions. :)
Is that a joke?
Isn’t that condition illegal, and thus unenforceable (at least in the U.S.)?
Not as far as I’m aware. NDAs are pretty common.
Interestingly, there is no NDA if you don’t sign up for the “Official Content Creators” program and just get regular access. Check the FAQ on the official page: https://www.marvelrivals.com/news/official/20240506/40185_1153552.html
This actually may be unconscionable if it’s considered to be “never share a negative opinion about the game in perpetuity” as it’s worded.
That’s what I’d like clarification on. Publicizing trade secrets is one thing. Merely giving an opinion is quite another.
deleted by creator
Can we not link archives in post link section? They have really bad loading times and are mobile incompatible. Put them in the body if you want
https://www.vg247.com/marvel-rivals-alpha-contract-doesnt-let-you-criticise-it
On the contrary, I wish more people would do it.
How is it mobile incompatible? What browser are you on
They serve the desktop html to everyone. Text either doesn’t fit the screen or you need to zoom out and then it’s too small to read.
And the time difference is significant too. 1-2.5s original site, 3-10+s archive. It’s a worse experience, especially if you have adblock on.
What’s wrong with giving the original link as default? That way not only would everyone have a good experience (and those who use adblock or a proxy / custom front-end etc would get the experience they expect), but all that traffic wouldn’t unnecessarily burden the chosen archive site neither. Again, put it in the body if you want.
Some sites are click bait. I don’t want them to get revenue.
Then use an adblock
There’s a treat for you. If you’re using mobile Firefox on the loaded archive.org page there’s should be a small icon [a square with 3 lines, resemble a written page] on the input url address. If you click it you get a very special page with just the article text tailored perfectly to your screen… with few added benefit: no ads, if your smartphone is set to dark mode, the content will tuned so, no java to track your mouse position (needed for advertiser) etc.
Pages recorded with archive.org will always work with Firefox’s reader view (somewebsite are catching up and blocking this mode). Basically you get the best of… nearly everything.
(on desktop it’s [ctrl][alt][r])
Can we not link archives in post link section? If you access from Europe you get a “cookie wall” (which I don’t think it’s EU compliant): basically give you three options:
- accept all the advertsment cookies form… basically everyone (ads company, google, fb… anyway to sell your data)
- pay subscription
- get the hell out.
…basically a troll fine on the top of the bridge.
anyway, on the archive.org saved page you also get the online address too.
Basically you get the best of… nearly everything.
But I don’t get the best of everything. I get the experience you want to have, which is not the same as mine. I don’t want to wait forever for the archive to dig the site out if nobody has accessed it the last few minutes. I don’t want to have to use Firefox reader mode to have an acceptable experience. Not to mention that you can use reader view with most sites themselves and get all its benefits anyways.
I don’t want compulsory ad blocking. I know hating online publications in hip here but maybe I want them to survive so I don’t want to block their ads. And conversely I don’t want to put unnecessary traffic on archive websites from everyone going through them to read the article as opposed to only the people that want to.
If you access from Europe you get a “cookie wall” (which I don’t think it’s EU compliant)
I’m not from eu and that’s not the prompt I got. It only had accept and manage buttons and the manage button opened a thing that had a reject all button.
on the archive.org saved page you also get the online address too.
If the archive link wasn’t the default (and only) option you wouldn’t need to use reader mode or get the address from the archive (and waste time doing so) to get back to a good experience. Like I said, put the archive in the body if you want so that people have options, but don’t make it default.
That part isn’t needed as part of an NDA. I think people are upset because it is blatantly unnecessary so it appears they are hiding something.
