Submitted 7 months ago by simple@lemm.ee to games@lemmy.world
https://files.catbox.moe/ousl3s.webp
On today’s episode of “This shouldn’t be legal”…
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.”
If you say “x and y is broken it not implemented yet” that’s an objective negative review.
If both x and y are broken, then it’s totally unplayable.
Y’all heard it here, this person says Marvels Rivals is unplayable. Do not preorder!
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
No way they can enforce that. I hope nobody is going to intimidated by this.
This isn’t a “we’ll sue you” clause, it’s a “we’ll never do business with you again” clause
Which is usually unwritten but understood. It’s wild that they put it in writing.
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.
The ToS forbids satirical reviews. I’d start a review by reading out this portion of the ToS and then make a list of things I hate, just saying I’m not allowed to talk about this aspect of the game.
Judges are smarter than that. So are juries.
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.
“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.
It must be a REALLY hood game. Only the best games that were already going to get high reviews would ever resort to such a policy
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 finished. This is that kind of clouged together 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.”
???
We just have a give a positive spin
“The game is really good at sucking”
“This game would definitely win an honorary award for ‘Games I don’t Care About’”
“This Christmas I would gift the game to all my cousins whom I hate”
It’s going to be relentlessly compared to OverWatch. It’s basically an OverWatch clone with Marvel characters.
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.
In the context of a game, let’s say a clearly outdated graphics engine that everyone can agree on looks very dated. Or game-stopping bugs. Constant crashes. Etc.
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.
Basicallymakes any test results null and void
How? The agreement restricts public statements, not negative feedback as a whole.
or providing subjective negative reviews
I’m not sure what your argument is here but it doesn’t seem solid. How is a reviewer supposed to do their job?
You sure? Post doesnt stipulate
This is market manipulation at its best. The whole board should be jailed for it.
This is market manipulation at its best.
yes
The whole board should be jailed for it.
no
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.
100%. This was no 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.
engage in any discussions that are detrimental to the reputation of the game
You would literally break the contract
Arguably it’s not detrimental to the reputation of the game, but the company.
Nope. They would be talking about the company not 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 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.
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”
There’s nothing in this wording that implies anything more than “don’t negatively review us”
It’s says subjective negative reviews. it seems if you say “It kept crashing” or “this feature wasn’t working” or “this feature was super bugged” those aren’t subjective.
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?
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.
You are aware that first amendment protects speech from government actions/bodies only. It’s not something you can use against a private business (there are other laws for discrimination.)
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.
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.
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 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 delivery 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 this asshole for?
Just stop pretending streamers are these independent objective observers and recognize them for what they are - online door-to-door sales guys.
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.
i feel bad for the developers who worked on it because it looks like there was 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.
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
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 mean most play tests let you say nothing at all. So not sure if this is better or worse.
It did say “subjective negative reviews”. I would take that to mean that strictly objective negative reviews are perfectly acceptable.
Just black list people like a normal company - whoever i suspect they did this to revoke access during EA.
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.”
Vespair@lemm.ee 7 months ago
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
brbposting@sh.itjust.works 7 months ago
Number three combo, hold the freedom please
Image
Vespair@lemm.ee 7 months ago
Sincere thank you for providing what I was referencing 👍
mriormro@lemmy.world 7 months ago
They can write anything they want in a TOS, doesn’t mean it’s legally enforceable.
reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 7 months ago
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.
Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 7 months ago
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.
Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 7 months ago
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.
Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Bingo! It’s written in a “cover my ass” but that ass can get kicked by the courts.
Arbiter@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Good luck getting it thrown out, that’ll be an expensive legal battle even if you do win.
xkforce@lemmy.world 7 months ago
If enough people believe that it is, they’re not going to be as likely to fight things that they should be.
EatATaco@lemm.ee 7 months ago
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.
Vespair@lemm.ee 7 months ago
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.
CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 months ago
If it’s still in alpha, then a standard non disclosure should be fine.
A non-disparagement clause is overkill.
A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 7 months ago
It’d be a lot more reasonable if they simply said “No public discussion of this game, period”
Trying specifically to squelch the negative comments so any positive comments can go unchallenged is bullshit and entirely unreasonable.
JoMiran@lemmy.ml 7 months ago
The problem is that unless the agreement explicitly states that the non-disparagment section applies only to the test playtest, the agreement would essentially place a gag order on that creator for the life of the game.
reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 7 months ago
which tv manufacturer was it that updated their eula and if you didn’t agree it bricked your tv?
Randomocity@sh.itjust.works 7 months ago
Roku had a new agreement that if you didn’t agree you couldn’t access the TV
maccentric@sh.itjust.works 7 months ago
Revo, but they don’t manufacture TVs
Emerald@lemmy.world 7 months ago
I really don’t understand the point of a McD’s app anyways. They have a drive thru
DumbAceDragon@sh.itjust.works 7 months ago
Vespair@lemm.ee 7 months ago
What a wonderful and poignant aside that adds absolutely nothing to the discussion at hand.