Marvels Rivals requires creators to sign a contract that removes your right to give a negative review in order to access the playtest
Marvels Rivals requires creators to sign a contract that removes your right to give a negative review in order to access the playtest
On today's episode of "This shouldn't be legal"...
Source: https://twitter.com/A_Seagull/status/1789468582281400792
Fucking bonkers. Between this an McD's changing their ToS to say using their app waives any right to non-arbitration dispute, something needs to be done about companies trying to effectively write new laws into their ToS. This shit is beyond egregious
Number three combo, hold the freedom please
Sincere thank you for providing what I was referencing 👍
They can write anything they want in a TOS, doesn't mean it's legally enforceable.
even then, it's essentially paywalling your rights. you need to go to court, wait for the matter to be adjudicated, hope it works out in your favor, run out any potential appeals, all while paying attorneys and not being able to do something you're legally entitled to do. If you can't do all that, then your rights are moot.
Yeah, it's time to nip this on the front end though. ToS are such a part of daily life now. They should be regulated to be concise, use standardized consumer-friendly language, and have bounds against non-arbitration and other nonsense like this. This sort of legislation is well overdue.
Having unenforceable or illegal clauses in a legal contract means the contract wasn't written in good faith, which should void the whole thing. Regardless of any "if parts of this contract are deemed illegal, the rest still stands".
It would be nice to see more proactive involvement of the legal system with this, like have some people whose job it is to challenge these consumer contracts and standardize them kinda like how some open source licenses are standardized. Modularize it, so instead of writing out the whole "limited liability" section, they could refer to an established one by name. Then each module can be the subject of study and challenge, like if a more limiting one should come with other compromises elsewhere.
I think at that point, most honest companies would just pick a standard license or contract, plus maybe a few modifications and shady ones will have more trouble hiding shit like this in the middle of pages and pages of the same boring shit you've read hundreds of times before if you actually do read these things before signing or clicking agree.
At this point, most contracts should probably be unenforceable because few people actually do understand what they are agreeing to, which is supposed to be one of the essential parts of a contract. So many parts should probably have an "initial here to show you agreed to this" at the very least. But I'm no fool, this is likely considered a feature rather than a bug for most of the people involved in making and enforcing these things.
If enough people believe that it is, they're not going to be as likely to fight things that they should be.
which tv manufacturer was it that updated their eula and if you didn't agree it bricked your tv?
Roku had a new agreement that if you didn't agree you couldn't access the TV
Revo, but they don’t manufacture TVs
I really don't understand the point of a McD's app anyways. They have a drive thru
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.
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.
No satire? Guess anything on the internet is out of the question then.
Engaging or providing subjective negative reviews
What do they think a review is?! If they wanted an advertisement, buy an ad spot on Google ya cheap bastards.
Because they want the benefits of advertising with the power of word-of-mouth, all at the expense of free.
That they think they can get away with it is bananas to me.
I saw that line and immediately thought "oh ho ho, we have a loophole. This wasn't a subjective review, it was entirely objective. The game is objectively shit."
you can do a non subjective review.
Product X has Y thingamagingies which is better than their previous model and Z percent more than their competitors product
I hope there is a bunch of really sarcastic positive reviews, listing everything they hate about the game as if it’s what they really love about the game.
Yep, this is the move 👍
It's a mobile game from NetEase. I think it's a excellent opportunity to be a madlad and review it like that because fuck them.
Aww boo hoo I can't review any more of their shitty gacha games?
It must be a REALLY good game. Only the best games that were already going to get high reviews would ever resort to such a policy
"I signed a contract that forbids me from saying anything negative about this game. I am therefore contractually obligated to say nothing"
This game doesn't ruin your entire day by playing it for even a second.
By the contract, you couldn't say anything detrimental about the game, so such a statement would still be forbidden. Whether such a vague limitation on what a content creator can say would hold up in court is a different thing.
Shows that they have amazing confidence in their product. This is the same to me as saying "We know it sucks so please don't say so if we give you this key."
My first thought is: This is probably a shitty game because if it was good, they wouldn't be worried.
They are probably concerned because management has decided that the game should be shown off even though it's probably not ready. This is that kind of clouged together solution.
As per usual it just seems to have blown up in their gormless faces.
It says not to leave "subjective bad reviews". As in, objectively bad is fine.
It also says you can't compare it to other games "maliciously." What the fuck does that even mean?
"Marvel Rivals is just as bad as Cyberpunk 2077 at launch."
???
Not being able to make satirical comments about any game-related material would mean nobody could say something like, "Controlling Iron Man feels like fighting Jarvis for control of the suit", or "Storm is as effective as a light breeze"
Care to clarify what is objectively bad? Like, an example
My understanding is that Digital Foundry type of performance review is fine, but comments on how the control feels laggy or the game is a lower-tier copycat of Overwatch are not okay.
Game kills all life on earth when starting
This is utter hogshit, but also seems relatively easy to work around. "I am legally forbidden from sharing my opinions on the quality of Marvel Rivals." is a pretty clear and succinct review that technically flies under their legal fuckery.
Basically makes any test results null and void
these ass hats know what they are risking. they just plan for a "sorry we got caught" apology ready if needed in the hopes that they get away with it.
You might be right. This might not have been a mistake. Some creators in the Twitter thread said that they brought it up ahead of time but the company sent those agreements out as is anyway.
Thanks for the link, just posted it.
Every reviewer who signed this should post a review, but of the business practices and why not to buy the game.
"Good game, but the company behind it is shit and required me to sign this contract. <Insert contract clause>. Remember this whenever your reading the totally honest reviews about how good the game is."
When they reach the aspects of the game that they didn't like they can just say "let's skip this next part about CTF mode, because I signed a contract" and let the viewers deduce what they deduce.
They saw what MKBHD's honest reviews did to Fisker and Humane and said "can we stop that from happening?"
As stupid as it is, it doesn't stop a creator from simply demonstrating issues, without commentary. Just show people the issues and don't remark on them.
That being said, nobody should sign this. Trying to forbid people from making satirical remarks? What the crap?
Do that while explaining how that contract clause works!
They literally can't do that. Satire is a protected right under the first amendment. Anyone can make public satirical remarks regardless of signing that contract.
Well that's stupid. Getting negative reviews is also a good thing. It allows you to re-evaluate your product(s). Pretty much you're going to sell a half assed product, pretending it's amazing because you refused to take critically-negative feedback from your paying customers. Guess they just want to completely obliterate their company.
That's by design. They weren't interested in writing a good game or getting honest feedback. They wanted everyone to buy it and get money for it.
This is so stupid. Isn't this a free-to-play game? With one-time-purchase games you can try to fool people, then take your money and leave while people complain about the game behind you.
But this is a free-to-play game, they intend to make money by gradual ongoing revenue from in-game purchases, etc. You can't fool people who are actively playing the game.
The contract hurts their image, and prevents them from receiving critical feedback.
That contract has absolutely no legal bearing in any way shape or form.
Let them go to court over this, get thrown out and counter sued.
It's not a legal thing. Is the message. "I'm not giving you any more access in the future because you broke our agreement."
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.
Blink twice if you signed the contract...
seriously, i was expecting a complete farce of a game considering it's fucking NetEase but i was pleasantly surprised. the visuals, lighting and shaders, the particle effects, the UI, everything is so thoughtfully made and in line with the theme. even the alternate skins have "inspired by this comic issue" note attached.
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.
So long as this is only about the pre release and not about the game at all stages. Review embargoes are somewhat normal prior to launch.
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?
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.
I sort of saw it that way, but the last bit about “subjective negative reviews” seems unusual even for contracts.
There’s enough lazy rage bait “Turns out X is DOGSHIT?!?” videos out there that I don’t think it’s unreasonable to put some terms in expecting some professional effort. But disallowing even polite criticisms definitely seems too far.
The content creator agrees not to make public comments that are detrimental to the reputation of the game
Sounds pretty clear-cut, if you say anything bad about the game regardless of if it's true or not then you're in violation of this contract. That's ridiculous.
They're are actually saying you can't criticize the game. Now, you tell me who is the arbiter of what is and isn't "criticism", because it never says constructive criticism isn't criticism so presumably is also not allowed.
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?
I wager they are angling for the negative feedback to be private.
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 hate these filthy Neutrals Kiff. With enemies you know where they stand, but with Neutrals, who knows. It sickens me.
I mean most play tests let you say nothing at all. So not sure if this is better or worse.
Saying nothing at all is better than only being allowed to say good things and none of the bad. The former doesnt shift opinions in either direction but the latter introduces a pro-buying bias to reviews. Good for the publisher and no one else.
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.
I think the difference is that those play tests we are thinking of are for lack of other terms locked down. Playtests I have done were not able to be recorded, streamed and had water markers all over the place. In this case people are playing and streaming making videos at that point you should be able to give opinions on the game.
If it's actually a closed beta then it shouldn't be open to streamers at all. If are going to allow stream is to play it then it's not really a closed beta. It's a marketing gimmick.
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."
This is just my opinion but most comic book based games suck anyway.
Hmm... A perfectly neutral review with a share of the wording from the contract is nothing but factual, and I believe could be argued to be non disparaging?
No, disparaging is disparaging, even if it's warranted. But, if I were a small streamer who got a key, I would just repeat the non-disparagement clause any time I saw something obviously broken.
They can stop me saying anything negative but that doesn't cover body language (they might try to sue but they wouldn't ever be able to prove it to the degree required unless I had posted something like this explanation, and even then it's dicey), and I don't see anything in there about a minimum number of positive sentences of words to hit. God help these chucklefucks if they ever run into a Djinni or a cursed monkey's paw.
I’m assuming it’s with regards to the Play Test which is in very early stages and shouldn’t be judged as completed. Seems fair enough if it’s nowhere near complete
Right. It makes sense right up until the point where they only act on negative reviews.
Non disclosures / non disparagement are industry standard, but this is bonkers. Non-disclosure but only for the stuff we don't like? The fuck
I was in his stream when people sent him the contract they signed just to get the key. Wild. The game is janky looking as fuck so they definitely know how bad it is.
Don't worry folk's. We pay taxes so that the FTC and FCC gotz our backz broz.
Do they have our back though?
It's one of the reasons that nobody says anything bad about the product that their sponsor provided to them. Either that or people don't want to ruin their relationship with their sponsors so they will talk highly of a product even if it isn't good.
It did say "subjective negative reviews". I would take that to mean that strictly objective negative reviews are perfectly acceptable.
Iron Man is shooting green lasers? wtf?
Edit: After watching the gameplay video, I can say it's a similar game to Paladins by Hi-Rez studios. The only thing is that Paladins has EAC and makes it unplayable on my OS.
Does the contract also require a review to be made at all?
I think we should rename this community "gaming controversies" because that's all that's ever discussed here.
I'm just curious, what exactly would you prefer to see here? I don't think this community is specific controversies, but I do think it is, and rightly so, mostly focused on gaming discussion rather than just games. And contentious topics are simply famously those which cause and often merit the most discussion.
Would you prefer instead if all of the posts were simply "How Great Is God of War?" followed by a chain of comments saying nothing but agreement?
I'm excited about the Paradox sale this weekend. Haven't seen that mentioned anywhere on Lemmy🤷
Aww, the Devs feelings might get hurt
The developers of the game had zero input on this. They're developers; this is a contract which would be written by lawyers, directed by management. The same management who force crunch on the devs you want to blame. Learn to recognise the enemy, please and thanks.
Management is part of the development team... Developers doesn't just mean programmers.
A director of a project is still management, but also a developer.
Nah, this is a pathetic attempt to get free ads from games journalists without any downsides
Could be wrong but this does not sound sound outlandish for a alpha. There should be no point to ruin a name/brand before it is out. You should not leave a "review" of a unfinished product.
If the product is unfinished, why is it being released to the public, in any capacity?
If they want to playtest and find bugs in their unfinished product, they should do that. By paying a QA team and playtesters, not by trying to dupe streamers into generating free advertisement.
You have never played an early alpha of a game and signed a NDA to not disclose it I did this with many games the finals, th division heatland, x defient, arc raiders etc. although in this case since there are yt videos and streams seems a little weird. I was uneducated the games I am talking about when I played had watermarks on them and were made for testing etc had no idea the game was like viewable. In this case it looks more like if tarkov or an EA game said you can't leave reviews.
To clarify yes I fully agree that not ok and didn't know the full facts.