Marvel Rivals alpha test contract explicitly prohibits "negative reviews" of the game
- Thread starter Pingal Pratyush
- Start date
I wonder, when I'm watching someone streamer do a sponsored #ad segment for a game, do sponsorships like that include similar clauses?
Or is this really new and egregious?
Or is this really new and egregious?
Can you share negative opinions post release? If not, I don't know that I really object to it? It's an alpha test, access is on the publisher's terms, they don't owe anyone an opportunity to publicly criticize an unfinished game. Tweet responses expressing concerns about people not being able to give important feedback are silly. You don't need an audience to give feedback.
If this is binding indefinitely it's garbage and nobody who wants to express any sort of opinion meant to be taken seriously by a wider audience shouldn't participate.
If this is binding indefinitely it's garbage and nobody who wants to express any sort of opinion meant to be taken seriously by a wider audience shouldn't participate.
I would for sure object to it. Basically, if they can only speak positively about it pre-release, they just become marketing tools. Even if it doesn't apply post-release, I now can't take anyones opinion on the game involved in content creation seriously, thanks to NetEase.
The tweet in OP is from an Overwatch streamer, and multiple other streamers expressed similar reactions in replies, so it seems this isn't common.
What happens if you someone signs such a contract and talks negatively about this (probably not good) game?
Are they permitted to say that they aren't permitted to say anything negative? Any content coming out of this should frankly be treated like advertising for exactly those reasons. I've always more or less felt the same about press previews, though.
Obvious statement, but in case anyone need to hear it verbalized:
Literally every video/written opinion of Marvel Rivals that you come across is legally obligated to be positive. Even if they hate it.
This is especially true for the reviewer that you always read/tend to agree with.
Literally every video/written opinion of Marvel Rivals that you come across is legally obligated to be positive. Even if they hate it.
This is especially true for the reviewer that you always read/tend to agree with.
I guess it's shady in that people will watch this content and not realize they're being essentially advertised to, with zero opportunity for your favourite streamer to even tell you they don't love it.
People streaming or otherwise producing content of this shit should probably be required to run a disclaimer.
People streaming or otherwise producing content of this shit should probably be required to run a disclaimer.
Yeah, I think for an alpha test version this seems ok and normal to me from a company perspective.
Is it really standard for companies to explicitly do this? News to me.
Pretty standard, though usually in the form of NDAs, which are more or less the same thing. You don't want people out there trash talking your in-development alpha.
If it was a press preview or review code or something, then some outrage would be warranted.
That said, it's a little weird considering they didn't make any of the normal invites require contracts or NDAs of any kind, and word-of-mouth overall seems pretty positive
You should go into any kind of coverage of anything with this attitude, regardless of how enforced or explicit it is.
My rule is: if a normal anonymous person can't participate in discourse, consider that discourse suspect unless you have good reason to think otherwise.
So actual journalists attached to large outfits I trust to a degree, because there is an intentional DMZ built for them between advertising and content, and being attached to a large outfit makes it less advantageous for a corporation to punish them for a bad take.
If I streamer or youtuber gets a key early, I am skeptical of everything they say. They are their own money maker, a corp can just not give them a key next time if they don't like what they say, and being in the group that gets pre-release keys puts you in advantageous spots that you don't' want to give up. (every time a streamer opens some kind of goodie bag from a corp live on stream I cringe to the ends of the earth, because it's so fucking tasteless and crass)
This doesn't mean they are all straight up lying or anything, I am saying skeptical not like, conspiratorial. It's just that there is a reason that journalistic outfits are structured in the way that they are, and there is a reason that PR people used to call content creators "influencers".
This is pretty normal for alpha testing. Essentially they don't want people posting about how shitty the game runs or this aspect is completely bugged, when that is stuff that can easily be fixed while in the alpha stage. Look at how some games on Steam can have negative player reviews while in early access but have positive by the time it comes out, early access is a little different because it is people buying into a playable game, but it is similar concept. Thats what these companies are trying to avoid.
There's "please don't share information about the game in its test phase," and this ain't that.
Fuck off with this, lol.
Fuck off with this, lol.
This isn't an NDA as they're allowed to publicly stream and post videos of gameplay.
Smite 2 just had an alpha test and creators were allowed to say whatever the fuck they want. NDAs are fine but allowing people to stream and talk about the game but ONLY in a positive way is not great.
I gotta say some of the discussion around this game has been hilarious as people have framed it pretty heavily around people finally getting an opportunity to play something like Overwatch without having to support a scummy company like Blizzard.
On a personal note, what I played of Rivals was complete ass. The third person shooting is murky and unsatisfying, the sound design is awful, the vast majority of abilities are just blobby AoEs and slipshod melee attacks, and the TTK makes the whole game a slog.
It also runs like total shit and has some of the worst visual clarity I've seen since Battleborn. Geniunely do not understand the positive reception I've seen some from folks, outside of its a strong art direction (that very uncomfortably rips off OW and Valorant) it's got almost nothing going for it.
On a personal note, what I played of Rivals was complete ass. The third person shooting is murky and unsatisfying, the sound design is awful, the vast majority of abilities are just blobby AoEs and slipshod melee attacks, and the TTK makes the whole game a slog.
It also runs like total shit and has some of the worst visual clarity I've seen since Battleborn. Geniunely do not understand the positive reception I've seen some from folks, outside of its a strong art direction (that very uncomfortably rips off OW and Valorant) it's got almost nothing going for it.
I imagine it's really common. I remember watching Kinda Funny do a reaction video to those new Sega remakes that were revealed at The Game Awards (Jet Set Radio, Golden Axe, Shinobi, Streets of Rage, and Crazy Taxi) and being really surprised that they were only saying positives, They had no concerns at all about anything, not even the 3D Streets of Rage, coming after the success of SoR 4. Then I realised "Oh, it's a sponsored stream by Sega" (In fairness it was labelled "#Sponsored" in the title, and they had mentioned Sega asked them at the start, I'd missed it). It stood out that there were no concerns at all though. I imagine there had to be a similar clause with that.
I think in the current social media heavy world it's specifically meant so that 15 year old Timmy who booms on TikTok but also streams doesn't just let his teenage hormones go wild and slamming the game to the ground because of slight balance things or bugs in front of potentially thousands, if not more, raging and spreading hate while it's just a technical alpha and nowhere near a product that should be "reviewed" in any kind of form, yet.
Or something like that.
Yesterday on stream Seagull (the guy who posted the tweet) implied that a non-disparagement clause is common in sponsorship contracts. For those sponsored streams/videos content creators are basically paid for advertising, so it's understandable that they should not say negative stuff about the product.
This case with Marvel Rivals is unique, because they asked content creators to sign this contract in exchange for a game key. Content creators are not paid to advertise the game.
There are multiple ways to handle this without involving PR blunder.
If you want to Alpha test an early build with a selected group of people, just NDA them from saying anything publicly--what you want is the feedback, not the publication. If content creators asked for key codes to alpha (as the tweet implied), then they have to be treated like anyone else--NDA them from saying anything. One might wonder why having creators do alpha test if they can't say anything, but hey they want feedback. You can't have both positive free marketing and actual feedback when the game is clearly incomplete.
Like you said, this is a pretty normal situation, but no other game had a similar blunder.
To be fair, not everyone read the contract before signing, lol. Although maybe your point was "anyone who signed a contract without reading it is an idiot and worth a block on youtube".
There are also content creators who didn't sign anything and received a key from other players who got into the alpha.
Probably best to take any sponsored deal with a grain of salt. Even if it's not written into a contract I'd say there is an incentive to be positive, after all why would you continue receiving sponsorships if you just trash the game
I don't think this is normal at all. If they're allowed to openly talk about their experience and post gameplay or stream it, then no I don't think this is normal at all. This isn't some behind the doors test phase at that point. It's just a bonafide public marketing push.
Also, the game looks like ass based on the perspective alone. But I haven't played it yet and still want to check it out.
Also, the game looks like ass based on the perspective alone. But I haven't played it yet and still want to check it out.
It's absolutely not normal and Marvel Rivals deserves to be raked over the coals for it.
Either tell people they cant share info about the game as expected of a standard NDA or allow people to speak their mind. You cannot have it both ways, these people are not your employees.
This is something they need to clarify because the language they use crosses the line between typical playtest thing to sign and becoming an unpaid marketing tool for them. The second one also risks them being flagged as ads, and the last thing you want is deceptive ads from unpaid people doing marketing for you.
This is complete misinformation and the fact that there a bunch of low tier, half-assed gaming outlets running with it is a fucking joke.
This contract is only applicable if you signed up to their creator partner program, not just from signing up to play the alpha.
Imagine willingly signing up to be a content partner for a game and then complaining that you can't just spend all your videos bitching about it.
This contract is only applicable if you signed up to their creator partner program, not just from signing up to play the alpha.
Imagine willingly signing up to be a content partner for a game and then complaining that you can't just spend all your videos bitching about it.
I get the impression that what people are calling "normal" is the implicit sponsorship arrangement where the sponsee generally has good incentive to do well and keep in good graces with the sponsor. More than just wanting to maintain access, it's just good business to be a good representative for the sponsor. Very few openly ask to get shit on because why would they, and even then there's only a handful of people with strong enough personal brands to get away with that.
The weird part to me is putting this in explicit writing and trying to legally bind people to this. That just seems uncalled for and if the idea is to control for shit-stirrers and kids maybe they should, y'know, be curating those out of their content creator program? Kinda feels like Netease just wants to extend sponsorship to whoever wants it and are hoping this protects them and it's just....really shitty to do.
Also feels like Netease is trying to play it both ways with NDAs: they want some amount of control over messaging through the content creator program but they also wanted gameplay clips to flood out with the CAT and wanted "there's no NDA required!" as a marketing point. Like if the only reason they said that was to greenlight people streaming and uploading gameplay clips....they could've just said that, y'know? This whole thing comes off as just overextending for no good reason.
It's a shame, Marvel Rivals looks like a really solid and well-polished game even with a couple hiccups here and there. It's speaking for itself just fine. This own-goal here is just completely unnecessary.
The weird part to me is putting this in explicit writing and trying to legally bind people to this. That just seems uncalled for and if the idea is to control for shit-stirrers and kids maybe they should, y'know, be curating those out of their content creator program? Kinda feels like Netease just wants to extend sponsorship to whoever wants it and are hoping this protects them and it's just....really shitty to do.
Also feels like Netease is trying to play it both ways with NDAs: they want some amount of control over messaging through the content creator program but they also wanted gameplay clips to flood out with the CAT and wanted "there's no NDA required!" as a marketing point. Like if the only reason they said that was to greenlight people streaming and uploading gameplay clips....they could've just said that, y'know? This whole thing comes off as just overextending for no good reason.
It's a shame, Marvel Rivals looks like a really solid and well-polished game even with a couple hiccups here and there. It's speaking for itself just fine. This own-goal here is just completely unnecessary.
Netease is just as scummy as Blizzard, and at least the latter actually pays the developers/artists involved in OW
View: https://twitter.com/willthebao/status/1773145396140712220?t=UYqaHGXr52vBIjapHT1PfA&s=19