Am I the only one that didn’t really see this as such a bad thing? Like, it was not released software. Asking someone to refrain from making a negative review of your unreleased software seems reasonable to me. Like, maybe it should have been worded differently, like don’t make a negative review based on unfinished or buggy gameplay, but the underlying idea doesn’t seem that bad. They’re not obligated to let anyone test their pre-release software.
Indeed, NDAs and “this is a preview version but…” disclaimers are supposed to exist so that what’s being reviewed is at least close to being the finished product or clearly labelled as not being finished.
It’s not just game devs who can be scummy about Early Access stuff, especially compared to “gaming journalism” ever since people realized Steam reviews are far more accurate than magazines and websites that sell ads. If the game isn’t finished, ask if progress is being made towards being finished, not whether “experts” from GameBloggerYT or Kotacky think it’s going to be. Marketers always lie if someone offers them enough money, and Big Tech has an investment in people not having reliable info on something, so if freakin’ Disney is able to say a straightforward “we fucked up” then you know that’s the honest truth.
But how they screwed up is what matters; they admitted the contract is bad, this isn’t about game quality. The game “journalist” vultures saw a corporate megafauna limping, this was a legal loophole they’re hurting from.
I know they sadly would never admit to making a flawed or predatory product, but I can at least respect that Disney decided not to sue someone. Maybe wishing on a star can work sometimes?
Meanwhile, EA and Uberme- I mean Ubisoft are literally killing good games because their newer stuff is subpar and they have no interest in doing better.
At this point, I’ll take whatever fair corporate activity I can get, Disney might not be Valve or GOG but I consider this incident to be one where a company hasn’t been deliberately sketchy for once.
Am I the only one that didn’t really see this as such a bad thing? Like, it was not released software. Asking someone to refrain from making a negative review of your unreleased software seems reasonable to me. Like, maybe it should have been worded differently, like don’t make a negative review based on unfinished or buggy gameplay, but the underlying idea doesn’t seem that bad. They’re not obligated to let anyone test their pre-release software.
Indeed, NDAs and “this is a preview version but…” disclaimers are supposed to exist so that what’s being reviewed is at least close to being the finished product or clearly labelled as not being finished.
It’s not just game devs who can be scummy about Early Access stuff, especially compared to “gaming journalism” ever since people realized Steam reviews are far more accurate than magazines and websites that sell ads. If the game isn’t finished, ask if progress is being made towards being finished, not whether “experts” from GameBloggerYT or Kotacky think it’s going to be. Marketers always lie if someone offers them enough money, and Big Tech has an investment in people not having reliable info on something, so if freakin’ Disney is able to say a straightforward “we fucked up” then you know that’s the honest truth.
But how they screwed up is what matters; they admitted the contract is bad, this isn’t about game quality. The game “journalist” vultures saw a corporate megafauna limping, this was a legal loophole they’re hurting from.
I know they sadly would never admit to making a flawed or predatory product, but I can at least respect that Disney decided not to sue someone. Maybe wishing on a star can work sometimes?
Meanwhile, EA and Uberme- I mean Ubisoft are literally killing good games because their newer stuff is subpar and they have no interest in doing better.
At this point, I’ll take whatever fair corporate activity I can get, Disney might not be Valve or GOG but I consider this incident to be one where a company hasn’t been deliberately sketchy for once.