Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Submissions have to be related to games
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
No excessive self-promotion
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
On today's episode of "This shouldn't be legal"...
Source: https://twitter.com/A_Seagull/status/1789468582281400792
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.
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."
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.
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.)
The point of the contract is that if one is in breach the company can sue for damages and potentially remove the offending media.
The suing process would be through a legal body such as a court system, in this case federal court since the media is on the Internet, therefore the contract doesn't hold any legal binding. No federal court would uphold a contract that violates the first amendment.
Contracts adhere to laws and rules just like any other legal document. You can't just put whatever you want into a contract and have it be binding.
federal court
lmao
Sure, but that term does not violate the first amendment since the government didn't stop you from saying it, so would hold up. You might be able to get it thrown out due to something else, you would need a lawyer for that.
That contract will have penalties for violations, and those are what you would be subject to if in violation.
That's not how that works. The contract is in and of itself a violation of the first amendment. Therefore it has no legal binding. They wouldn't be able to remove the offending media from any platform or sue for damages if someone breached the contract.
If there are internal ramifications due to a breach of contract that's something that could be handled internally, such as the content creator not being offered any review materials in the future. But a contract wouldn't be necessary for that either way.
Moreover, specifically for satire, there are whole acts in the law advocating for it. There is absolutely nothing, no clause or agreement that would ever prohibit someone from publicly satiring any given entity. Regardless of any contract.
Do that while explaining how that contract clause works!
Don't worry folk's. We pay taxes so that the FTC and FCC gotz our backz broz.
Do they have our back though?
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 just my opinion but most comic book based games suck anyway.
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 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
no
Yes
No
Maybe
so
They saw what MKBHD's honest reviews did to Fisker and Humane and said "can we stop that from happening?"