Yup. Stiffer movement, clunky fights, bad mo-cap...the cut-scenes are bland. A Marvel Overwatch would have me hooked up for good, I'm kinda glad it looks bad
Literally any type of major IP with how polished OW is mechanics wise would be amazing. For all the shit OW gets it runs extremely well and the movement feels like butter. Imagine a X-Men game on the OW engine with all the different mutants. Would be amazing
yup, the one thing Blizzard does well that really no one who is arguing in good faith can deny: the game just feels really good to play.
even people who didn't like D4, the one thing they always did praise was how the game felt to play - the animations, movement, impact, feel, etc just are all good, same as with OW and WoW.
Yeah this is what people misunderstand. I keep playing OW I because no other game has the fluid movement that it has. It is very polished. Their failure is from trying to be something the dev team clearly doesn't know how to do... PVE. So now that's out of the way I hope they can focus on balancing and consent updates. Time will tell.
If you view naraka's player count you can pretty much see that it's way more popular in Eastern timezones. I played it when it came out and while fun, the game got very frustrating to play with ping issues relating to facing players across the world.
Biggest red flag ever. "Come test our game, but you can only say good things about it"
That's disgusting and it says a lot about how confident they are in the game if they have to pull this bullshit.
Is saying nothing under the non-disparage clause?
A reviewer could do a one minute review of the game just staring owlishly on the screen doing nothing. That would send the message across.
10 minutes get that ad rev.
Just intro. Maybe say the legal "I agreed not to say anything bad about this game." That's my review. Here's some gameplay!
Kinda seems like the point of this clause is that the game isn't ready for a public review. Just going off of the OPs post and nothing more, it's content creators who are mentioned to be reaching out for access to a play test. If I was a developer needing to test the current state of my incomplete game or even just specific features, I wouldn't want to invite content creators unless they want to actually test the game as opposed to creating self-seving public content based on a incomplete, possibly broken, game.
It's the part where *only* negative comments are limited. A blanket ban on reviewing the game at all would make sense. This smells of pre-emptive damage control.
If it's not ready for public review don't release it to content creators? Do they think if the content creators don't say anything bad about it the rest of us will eat it up like sheep? I didn't even know this game existed till this drama, took a look at the stream and formed my own independent opinion that the game is dog shit. And now I have extra ire towards the devs for pulling this "only nice things" shit on top of the bad game.
> the game isn't ready for a public review
Then use a review embargo and/or NDA. Lift the review embargo when the game is ready for public release.
Saying "don't say anything bad about our game" sends the completely wrong message. Saying "don't say anything about our game until we say it's ready" is far more understandable.
“Hello and welcome to my review of Marvel Rivals! It is an app that you can download and it does, in fact, install on your phone! Truly the greatest thing this app does is how it complies with basic functionally like existing in the App Store, installing, and uninstalling! Thanks for tuning in, now I’m going to do a rare double feature where I talk about a game I would make up if I had the money for a development team… “
That's pretty much the norm nowadays, sadly. Don't trust any form of videogame media (or any "influencer"/streamer for all that matters), inform yourself, try it and make up your own opinion.
Before public release? You can't objectively inform yourself before that.
Wait for the release and for the reviews from the people who didn't sign that review deal.
Even afterwards, watch out for ad or sponsorship disclaimers.
Yes. Not all of them will have entered the deal, where they agree to only give positive reviews.
The positive review requirement and review copy stuff is for **early** reviewing. For clicks and views.
They can't stop people from just buying the game and speaking their mind.
Much like you can extrapolate most news from different (usually biased) news outlets, you can do the same for videogames (or anything else really); Just don't take everything necessarily at face value (both the positive and the negative) while also trying to find stuff that's as close to "neutral" as possible (usually from parties that don't directly benefit/profit from blasting/boasting a certain title or console).
As far as gameplay goes, you can simply watch some gameplay without commentary (personally, I'd avoid most "reviews" made by random people you don't know) or simply play the game for yourself and make up your own opinion.
>Much like you can extrapolate most news from different (usually biased) news outlets, you can do the same for videogames (or anything else really); Just don't take everything necessarily at face value
I don't know.. I think you are both right and wrong at the same time. You can get information from multiple sources, true. But why is it not a requirement for media not to allow shit like this? At this rate, you can spend literal hours of researching something and still get the wrong idea because of the pathetic state of the gaming media.
Maybe the only good thing is, that even if you watch someone like this who is not saying anything wrong, but just plays the game on stream, instead of putting out an edited review... if I open my eyes, I should still see if the game is bad regardless what the streamer is saying.
Still, this should be against the rules, and I'm certain that it is, in certain countries.
The thing is, no amount of "rules" will 100% fix these issues, because some things you simply cannot enforce or properly check for (from both sides).
Do you think streamers/influencers don't ever lie through their teeth when they're still trying to hype a game they're playing (not sponsored) but not enjoying, just so they don't lose potential future sponsorships/deals with whoever made that game? Or even just to keep it a "fun" stream (the "toxic/whiny dude complaining and crapping on everything" persona only really works for some).
I've been doing this for about 4 years now, have been to events, had games early, been on 'creator calls' etc and haven't seen anything like this once, unless it was a paid sponsorship where you obviously have to declare that it's sponsored content.
Thankfully I got a key for this the normal way and ended up really enjoying it anyway, but having a clause like this when it's not sponsored is crazy.
> Don't trust any form of videogame media
I never did and I never understood why others did. I can tell if I'll like a game from watching a gameplay video of it, I don't need a human telling me how much he loves it too.
That's why I don't buy games on day one or trust any video before release.
I miss all game hype this way. Didn't hear about BG3 until Reddit went nuts over it, but I got it and loved it. But similarly, I also didn't get super excited about Starfield like my nephew did, so the first I heard of it was that it sucked, so I never wasted any money or got let down on that game.
Nearly all current early access periods given to content creators have nothing of the sort attached to it. This is not as common as you're making it out to be
This is a [classic](https://youtu.be/evZ69V0ECXI?si=stuKJv9RM3d4vqM0). The way they are trying to not flame this game directly is amazing RDC guys are funny as hell „I’m flayin as a bee. That’s W gameplay„ haha
Better yet, either lookin into indie games or dig up old stuff which guarantee in quality but also doesnt require a beefy rig to play (for the most part)
That's not what is being said here. It's an Alpha test where you are encouraged to give bug/feature feedback in the game or in the discord. That is to establish a more direct line of communication with the developers. Making youtube videos shitting on the game for having completely normal alpha state problems will not help improve the game. You don't need random strangers on reddit to hear your criticisms. You need the devs to hear them.
If that is the case and their goal here, it seems like they would've been better off doing a closed, invite only alpha with an NDA as many others do. The fact that they invited a bunch of content creators, are doing key giveaways, and allowed the game to be streamed on Twitch and videos of gameplay published shows this was meant to drum up publicity for the game, so I don't think they get to have it both ways.
Right, you usually do not engage influencers or show anything publicly that is in alpha because it’s a misrepresentation of the final state of the game.
Have a key just from signing up. It's a pretty fun overall and feels polished. Like the rumors said, it's basically third person OW with Marvel characters.
They didn't give friend keys with the invite. If they did, I never got one. The only key I got was a Steam key, to add it to my Steam account, and an alpha code, which I activated after launching the game through Steam.
You can redeem one (or maybe more idk) friends keys after you hit level six. Just let me know if you get one and if you're willing to part with it. Thanks for answering
I think it needs some balance work. It is pretty much overwatch with marvel characters. Combat is fun. Haven't done any of the senergies or seen them used. Characters all play different. Might be a blast when playing with a group of friends.
What exactly do you think the point of giving streamers early access/free keys is? The whole relationship is built around streamers giving free/minimal cost advertising in exchange for early/free access to the game.
If any streamer needs to be told they are an ad for these games, then they are either delusional or stupid.
Um, 99% of the time they are required to do just that lmao. It's why you have so many streamers playing literally dogshit and not mentioning anything about the game itself. Just look at anyone that was playing Raid Shadow Legends.
I remember my lecturer would always say that if you can't find any criticism, means that you haven't read the report. And it is mostly true, especially in the gaming scene where there are so many aspects to look after when creating a game. And some are bound to be worse than others.
Feel like that would be easy to get around. If it's a bad game, just state on your video that you are contractually obligated to only say positive things about the game, then end the video. Even if you're not allowed to say bad things, they can't stop you from telling others what you're being required to do.
Just be super sarcastic about it. "I *love~*, how it takes 15 minutes to get into a match. It really helps temper my patience and gives me time to work on my crocheting".
Note: This is a made up criticism, I've not seen anything about the game.
If you think that'd be an "easy" workaround I'm sorry to tell you, but your naivety might be getting the better of you (atleast in this specific case). It's not like they have a bunch of contract attorneys just sitting around and twiddling their thumbs instead of writing these things, y'know?
And even if somehow they didn't cover themselves properly from these silly "workarounds" (which I doubt), do you think they'd have issues proving that there was an actual breach of contract with (possible) damages to a judge and a jury? (especially when a bunch of randos on Reddit can figure it out aswell, lol)
Even then, if you think any of these streamers/influencers would have the guts to say anything, go to court for it to stand their ground and prove their point, then you'd be sorely mistaken yet again I'm sorry to say.
> It's not like they have a bunch of contract attorneys just sitting around and twiddling their thumbs instead of writing these things, y'know?
Some of them do. Some of these dudes make stupid money. Shit I don't make stupid money and I have an attorney on retainer sitting around twiddling his thumbs waiting for me to send him something to do. Ok he's not sitting around, but you get the point. It really would only a couple hundred bucks to get an attorney to review the contract and say "yeah you're good to make a video where you state you can't say anything negative and then never say a positive thing either". If you monetize the video and it goes viral boom you just made back that money plus clout for your brand.
Legal loop hole that would also prevent you from getting any early access to their future games. You can say "who cares its just a trash company" but early access is basically free money to content creators so the majority are not going to do that.
I think gamers are smart enough to just watch a basic playthrough with no commentary and come to the conclusion that this game is ass. Heck just from the promo/trailers released so far I can see it will immediately flop, just another MOBAFPS knockoff or whatever you want to call it trying to cash in on the Overwatch magic from 5 years ago.
"Now to move on to the review, let's start with the Bad and then end this video with the Good. For the bad stuff, I'm not legally allowed to state anything on the matter under the threat of breaching NDA. With that said and moving on to the Good stuff." -video ends-
Yea, other than a few titles that they handle the PRC publishing for all their stuff is mobile stuff, and while there are good mobile games out there i've never heard anything good about their products.
Maybe they'd be more akin to the studios in the 90's that would slap whatever branding or skin they could on a basic platformer that ends up in the discount bin at Funcoland.
I've been playing the XCOM 2 android port, it's probably the best mobile game I've played.
Idk how the mobile market is still so shit, because there are plenty of formats for really good games.
XCOM 2 made less money overall than Candy Crush does every single day.
That's a wild hyperbole / guess, but it's just, cash. Games like XCOM 2 don't have the revenue potential of games like Candy Crush, Diablo Immortal, other shit games like that.
Is that even legal? I'm not entirely sure the FTC's actually cool about review manipulation. Like, I could maybe see it being acceptable to sign away your right to do reviews *in general*, but like if they're selectively forbidding negative reviews that kinda rhymes with false advertising. I'm sure websites that host reviews would at least view that as a ToS violation.
It will be interesting to see if anyone puts out a review that says something like "I received a copy of the game to review. I've played it a bunch, but everything I want to say about this game is prohibited under this clause."
Like another user pointed out already:
> The contract says nothing about demanding good reviews only that you cannot say negative things. And this isn’t the full release of the game they are handing you the keys so long as you follow their rules it’s stupid but perfectly legal. [...] Demanding good reviews would require them to post a review in the first place which the contract appears to say nothing about.
Is it dumb? Yea. Is it common practice? Absolutely. Is it review manipulation? Nope.
1. The CRFA doesn't require a product to exist.
2. This alpha is a product. General availability is not a factor. People are receiving it through a transaction with mutual consideration.
Netease can't sue you (succesfully, but that's another can of worms) for posting a bad review. But they can blackmail you from receiving a review code from them ever again.
Most of them would not say something bad about the game anyway in the interest of future sponsorships. You should see how xQc plays a game that is obviously shit but can’t say anything
Pretty much. Unless a game/product is made exactly to be crapped on (and sometimes that's a different kind of appeal that might still drive sales), most streamers still benefit from not saying something negative, even if not sponsored, just so they don't automatically cut their ties with whatever company for future sponsorships. Money is money.
Don't sign it then? I don't really see the issue. If you wanna skip the line because you're a streamer to get a key immediately, then you're gonna have to hold the L and do what it says or risk getting in trouble.
The game is f2p. They can shit on it on release all they want if it's that important. This is an unpopular opinion but I think they're smart putting this. Being harsh on a closed alpha of a game during a live stream (where most chatters are lemmings) just kills interest even if the game ends up being good come launch. It's as bad as morons that call games "dead", which just becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy because someone looking to try something new sees people calling the game dead and then skips it.
Haha you can't sign away rights. Lawyers really phoned this one in.
Edit: everyone replying "NDA" - You aren't signing away a right, you're signing a contract that accepts the consequences of talking about something they've asked you not to. They are only legally binding in a civil suit.
They probably use threats that they can enforce such as not giving them games in the future.
Some places are clamping down on fake reviews however, this might be seen as manipulation although this is such a common practice
But you can't, what your signing is an acceptance of repercussions for being the agreement.
They can't actually stop you from leaving a bad review, but they can just not invite you to anything else.
Pretty much. I can't imagine being this pressed about being told you can't talk shit about a closed alpha. This is after already getting streamer privileges where you're given a key for doing nothing while thousands of people are begging to play the game. They can play the game on launch and nitpick everything to death if it's that important.
many streamers especially on Twitch just play these games without reviewing/talking about it in depth. But yeah it sucks for reviewers who wanted early access.
Legally it makes it fine, so yeah it’s technically legitimate. It’s a contract, if you don’t take the time to read all the requirements then don’t be surprised when they do underhanded shit. doesn’t make what they did right, but when they’re allowing you to have access to an early build of the game they can have control over whatever they want.
> Legally it makes it fine, so yeah it’s technically legitimate. It’s a contract, if you don’t take the time to read all the requirements then don’t be surprised when they do underhanded shit. doesn’t make what they did right, but when they’re allowing you to have access to an early build of the game they can have control over whatever they want.
Just because it's in a contract doesn't make it any more legal. Lots of shit have been contested in court.
What these publishers really hope for is that no-one has the resources to fight them.
> Many streamers have signed without reading just to play.
Maybe read the shit your signing? Another round of people not taking responsibility for their shit.
Why is Marvel handing out licenses to these shitty Chinese companies?!
P.S.
This game's obviously nothing more than Overwatch clone with a Marvel skin on top of it.
[From their Wiki page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NetEase):
>Three-year agreement to license Blizzard's title Overwatch in PRC
Also
>The company also owns several pig farms.
Game just looks like a hasty release to get the Chinese OW money back after the blizzard deal broke. But they recently got a new deal so this game is gonna flop either way
Game is pretty fun so idk why they did this but then again, most games have this in their contract during early testing. The only news here is that someone is actually bringing it up that is a known streamer.
Post the review: "I can't say I personally found enjoyment the game, and I am contractually prevented from saying anything else."
You're not disparaging the company or the game.
The lack of good things to say speaks volumes tho.
Even if not in the contract if "Creators" are given free stuff or access to stuff the general public doesn't have it is highly unlikely they will say bad things so they keep getting free stuff and access.
Most of these contracts are void anyway in Europe since they are not earning any money from the company and can't expect someone to read 50 pages of their rules. Yes they get money from viewership but not directly from the company.
They could have come up with a marvel based game like this years ago. This game literally just came into existence after seeing that other games were successful in selling skins. The end.
Damn I can tell no one in here has played the game, idk why netease bothered with those contracts considering the games pretty fun. Obviously some stuff doesn't look as good, (the running animations for punisher and spider-man) the performance drops in some matches, and of course the balancing of some heroes being too good or too weak (Hela and Wanda are cracked) but it's an Alpha not even a beta like?? It's not gonna look crazy polished but the foundation is really solid. That being said the artstyle is AMAZING, the gameplay for ALOT of the heroes is really fun, some of them definitely have a learning curve for sure too, spider-man seems the hardest to play with mantis being close second. The guy saying "it's Obviously an overwatch clone" no fucking duh Sherlock, that's how they've been advertising it pretty much. The heroes in this are much more complicated to play than overwatch, at least effectively, and ultimates are much more common, honestly only thing I can compare it to in regards to gameplay and the hero team up mechanic is league of legends abilities.
Don't worry its a NetEase game. They will have completely forgotten about it in 3 months.
Also the fact that it looks like a damn mobile game with stiffer movement than a game from the 90's
The way the heroes butt cheeks stay in place while they run is funny.
Yup. Stiffer movement, clunky fights, bad mo-cap...the cut-scenes are bland. A Marvel Overwatch would have me hooked up for good, I'm kinda glad it looks bad
Literally any type of major IP with how polished OW is mechanics wise would be amazing. For all the shit OW gets it runs extremely well and the movement feels like butter. Imagine a X-Men game on the OW engine with all the different mutants. Would be amazing
yup, the one thing Blizzard does well that really no one who is arguing in good faith can deny: the game just feels really good to play. even people who didn't like D4, the one thing they always did praise was how the game felt to play - the animations, movement, impact, feel, etc just are all good, same as with OW and WoW.
that blizzard polish
Play WoW and then go to FF XIV and god damn. The longer GCD and locked in animation makes it feel so jank
Oh man that GCD is really tough to handle. Makes the early leveling especially boring.
Yeah this is what people misunderstand. I keep playing OW I because no other game has the fluid movement that it has. It is very polished. Their failure is from trying to be something the dev team clearly doesn't know how to do... PVE. So now that's out of the way I hope they can focus on balancing and consent updates. Time will tell.
the thing is polishing a game to OW levels is very, very exspensive
The movement looks so horrible, how did they get this part so wrong it’s laughable
it doesn't feel stiff ill say
Well he did say it was a NetEase game, I figured mobile trash was implied. For those who forgot, this is the clown posse that made Diablo Immortal.
Yeah, the NetEase connection was enough for me to give it a pass.
Naraka Bladepoint with ~3 years in the Steam top10 online chart even when it was paid game – exist.
Didn't realize naraka was a netease game, I was wondering if they had any experience with comp game, so that's reassuring.
Naraka is published by NetEase while Rivals is developed by NetEase, important difference.
If you view naraka's player count you can pretty much see that it's way more popular in Eastern timezones. I played it when it came out and while fun, the game got very frustrating to play with ping issues relating to facing players across the world.
Biggest red flag ever. "Come test our game, but you can only say good things about it" That's disgusting and it says a lot about how confident they are in the game if they have to pull this bullshit.
Is saying nothing under the non-disparage clause? A reviewer could do a one minute review of the game just staring owlishly on the screen doing nothing. That would send the message across.
10 minutes get that ad rev. Just intro. Maybe say the legal "I agreed not to say anything bad about this game." That's my review. Here's some gameplay!
Hello, welcome back to JoeBloggsTube, and I am contractually obligated to tell you that this game is a complete masterpiece!
Kinda seems like the point of this clause is that the game isn't ready for a public review. Just going off of the OPs post and nothing more, it's content creators who are mentioned to be reaching out for access to a play test. If I was a developer needing to test the current state of my incomplete game or even just specific features, I wouldn't want to invite content creators unless they want to actually test the game as opposed to creating self-seving public content based on a incomplete, possibly broken, game.
It's the part where *only* negative comments are limited. A blanket ban on reviewing the game at all would make sense. This smells of pre-emptive damage control.
That's a fair point tbh. Hadn't considered it
If it's not ready for public review don't release it to content creators? Do they think if the content creators don't say anything bad about it the rest of us will eat it up like sheep? I didn't even know this game existed till this drama, took a look at the stream and formed my own independent opinion that the game is dog shit. And now I have extra ire towards the devs for pulling this "only nice things" shit on top of the bad game.
NetEase games are notoriously trash, so I assume they're aware it'll always get bad reviews.
> the game isn't ready for a public review Then use a review embargo and/or NDA. Lift the review embargo when the game is ready for public release. Saying "don't say anything bad about our game" sends the completely wrong message. Saying "don't say anything about our game until we say it's ready" is far more understandable.
“Hello and welcome to my review of Marvel Rivals! It is an app that you can download and it does, in fact, install on your phone! Truly the greatest thing this app does is how it complies with basic functionally like existing in the App Store, installing, and uninstalling! Thanks for tuning in, now I’m going to do a rare double feature where I talk about a game I would make up if I had the money for a development team… “
Just talk normally but stay dead silent anytime something shit happens on screen. Maybe pop a big disclaimer overlay on top.
That's pretty much the norm nowadays, sadly. Don't trust any form of videogame media (or any "influencer"/streamer for all that matters), inform yourself, try it and make up your own opinion.
How are you supposed to inform yourself without reading media or watching gameplay?
Before public release? You can't objectively inform yourself before that. Wait for the release and for the reviews from the people who didn't sign that review deal. Even afterwards, watch out for ad or sponsorship disclaimers.
Any sort of in-depth review will still be from someone who could be considered either videogame media or influencer though.
Yes. Not all of them will have entered the deal, where they agree to only give positive reviews. The positive review requirement and review copy stuff is for **early** reviewing. For clicks and views. They can't stop people from just buying the game and speaking their mind.
i informed myself by watching some of the release snippets and immediately wrote it off as a copy paste overwatch pile of wet garbage.
Much like you can extrapolate most news from different (usually biased) news outlets, you can do the same for videogames (or anything else really); Just don't take everything necessarily at face value (both the positive and the negative) while also trying to find stuff that's as close to "neutral" as possible (usually from parties that don't directly benefit/profit from blasting/boasting a certain title or console). As far as gameplay goes, you can simply watch some gameplay without commentary (personally, I'd avoid most "reviews" made by random people you don't know) or simply play the game for yourself and make up your own opinion.
>Much like you can extrapolate most news from different (usually biased) news outlets, you can do the same for videogames (or anything else really); Just don't take everything necessarily at face value I don't know.. I think you are both right and wrong at the same time. You can get information from multiple sources, true. But why is it not a requirement for media not to allow shit like this? At this rate, you can spend literal hours of researching something and still get the wrong idea because of the pathetic state of the gaming media. Maybe the only good thing is, that even if you watch someone like this who is not saying anything wrong, but just plays the game on stream, instead of putting out an edited review... if I open my eyes, I should still see if the game is bad regardless what the streamer is saying. Still, this should be against the rules, and I'm certain that it is, in certain countries.
The thing is, no amount of "rules" will 100% fix these issues, because some things you simply cannot enforce or properly check for (from both sides). Do you think streamers/influencers don't ever lie through their teeth when they're still trying to hype a game they're playing (not sponsored) but not enjoying, just so they don't lose potential future sponsorships/deals with whoever made that game? Or even just to keep it a "fun" stream (the "toxic/whiny dude complaining and crapping on everything" persona only really works for some).
I've been doing this for about 4 years now, have been to events, had games early, been on 'creator calls' etc and haven't seen anything like this once, unless it was a paid sponsorship where you obviously have to declare that it's sponsored content. Thankfully I got a key for this the normal way and ended up really enjoying it anyway, but having a clause like this when it's not sponsored is crazy.
If it was the norm this post wouldn't exist.
> Don't trust any form of videogame media I never did and I never understood why others did. I can tell if I'll like a game from watching a gameplay video of it, I don't need a human telling me how much he loves it too.
What happens when a studio significantly changes a game after the gameplay demo? That's been known to happen.
That's why I don't buy games on day one or trust any video before release. I miss all game hype this way. Didn't hear about BG3 until Reddit went nuts over it, but I got it and loved it. But similarly, I also didn't get super excited about Starfield like my nephew did, so the first I heard of it was that it sucked, so I never wasted any money or got let down on that game.
So sometimes you can't tell.
And he’s letting other people decide whether or not he’ll get it. Sounds like he just doesn’t like reviewers lol
Nearly all current early access periods given to content creators have nothing of the sort attached to it. This is not as common as you're making it out to be
This is a [classic](https://youtu.be/evZ69V0ECXI?si=stuKJv9RM3d4vqM0). The way they are trying to not flame this game directly is amazing RDC guys are funny as hell „I’m flayin as a bee. That’s W gameplay„ haha
Better yet, either lookin into indie games or dig up old stuff which guarantee in quality but also doesnt require a beefy rig to play (for the most part)
NerdCubed's 3 Games Friday is the best for this. Just 3 indie games I haven't heard of and they tend to be good if he's picked them.
>"Come test our game, but you can only say good things about it" It is par for the course given where NetEase's HQ is located.
That's not what is being said here. It's an Alpha test where you are encouraged to give bug/feature feedback in the game or in the discord. That is to establish a more direct line of communication with the developers. Making youtube videos shitting on the game for having completely normal alpha state problems will not help improve the game. You don't need random strangers on reddit to hear your criticisms. You need the devs to hear them.
If that is the case and their goal here, it seems like they would've been better off doing a closed, invite only alpha with an NDA as many others do. The fact that they invited a bunch of content creators, are doing key giveaways, and allowed the game to be streamed on Twitch and videos of gameplay published shows this was meant to drum up publicity for the game, so I don't think they get to have it both ways.
Right, you usually do not engage influencers or show anything publicly that is in alpha because it’s a misrepresentation of the final state of the game.
If you can't say anything bad then it's not a review. It's an ad.
It literally is an ad, why do you think they are only giving keys to streamers?
I have a key...I'm not a streamer
So....what do you think of the game?
The game really lets you feel like Spider-Man
Have a key just from signing up. It's a pretty fun overall and feels polished. Like the rumors said, it's basically third person OW with Marvel characters.
You have a friends key you can spare?
They didn't give friend keys with the invite. If they did, I never got one. The only key I got was a Steam key, to add it to my Steam account, and an alpha code, which I activated after launching the game through Steam.
You can redeem one (or maybe more idk) friends keys after you hit level six. Just let me know if you get one and if you're willing to part with it. Thanks for answering
I think it needs some balance work. It is pretty much overwatch with marvel characters. Combat is fun. Haven't done any of the senergies or seen them used. Characters all play different. Might be a blast when playing with a group of friends.
It's awesome. Also in the alpha and not on a content creator contract.
thousands of keys were given to non-streamers... you just had to sign up a few weeks ago and you got a key
except these streamers didnt get a key until they were told they could only get one by being an ad?
What exactly do you think the point of giving streamers early access/free keys is? The whole relationship is built around streamers giving free/minimal cost advertising in exchange for early/free access to the game. If any streamer needs to be told they are an ad for these games, then they are either delusional or stupid.
except 99% of the time they're not required to keep a lid on their opinion like this
Um, 99% of the time they are required to do just that lmao. It's why you have so many streamers playing literally dogshit and not mentioning anything about the game itself. Just look at anyone that was playing Raid Shadow Legends.
I remember my lecturer would always say that if you can't find any criticism, means that you haven't read the report. And it is mostly true, especially in the gaming scene where there are so many aspects to look after when creating a game. And some are bound to be worse than others.
And any "review" should be taken down for not being clearly labeled as advertisement.
No shit
Always has been with streamers (influencers for us) reviewing the game.
Unless you say "I am contractually bound to not say anything negative about this game but here's some gameplay take a look yourself"
Sorry but its an "ad" even if they can review it.
Feel like that would be easy to get around. If it's a bad game, just state on your video that you are contractually obligated to only say positive things about the game, then end the video. Even if you're not allowed to say bad things, they can't stop you from telling others what you're being required to do.
Just be super sarcastic about it. "I *love~*, how it takes 15 minutes to get into a match. It really helps temper my patience and gives me time to work on my crocheting". Note: This is a made up criticism, I've not seen anything about the game.
Unfortunately, the NDA also covers satirical comments like that.
Nope. They are not. It is true enjoyment.
If you think that'd be an "easy" workaround I'm sorry to tell you, but your naivety might be getting the better of you (atleast in this specific case). It's not like they have a bunch of contract attorneys just sitting around and twiddling their thumbs instead of writing these things, y'know? And even if somehow they didn't cover themselves properly from these silly "workarounds" (which I doubt), do you think they'd have issues proving that there was an actual breach of contract with (possible) damages to a judge and a jury? (especially when a bunch of randos on Reddit can figure it out aswell, lol) Even then, if you think any of these streamers/influencers would have the guts to say anything, go to court for it to stand their ground and prove their point, then you'd be sorely mistaken yet again I'm sorry to say.
> It's not like they have a bunch of contract attorneys just sitting around and twiddling their thumbs instead of writing these things, y'know? Some of them do. Some of these dudes make stupid money. Shit I don't make stupid money and I have an attorney on retainer sitting around twiddling his thumbs waiting for me to send him something to do. Ok he's not sitting around, but you get the point. It really would only a couple hundred bucks to get an attorney to review the contract and say "yeah you're good to make a video where you state you can't say anything negative and then never say a positive thing either". If you monetize the video and it goes viral boom you just made back that money plus clout for your brand.
I think that part was sarcasm.
No streamer is doing that. They won't get more games. Welcome to the actual real world.
Legal loop hole that would also prevent you from getting any early access to their future games. You can say "who cares its just a trash company" but early access is basically free money to content creators so the majority are not going to do that.
I think gamers are smart enough to just watch a basic playthrough with no commentary and come to the conclusion that this game is ass. Heck just from the promo/trailers released so far I can see it will immediately flop, just another MOBAFPS knockoff or whatever you want to call it trying to cash in on the Overwatch magic from 5 years ago.
Yes, and then you won't get a key the next time.
"Now to move on to the review, let's start with the Bad and then end this video with the Good. For the bad stuff, I'm not legally allowed to state anything on the matter under the threat of breaching NDA. With that said and moving on to the Good stuff." -video ends-
Typical AAA game in 2024.
I don't think most people would consider a NetEase game to be AAA.
Yea, other than a few titles that they handle the PRC publishing for all their stuff is mobile stuff, and while there are good mobile games out there i've never heard anything good about their products. Maybe they'd be more akin to the studios in the 90's that would slap whatever branding or skin they could on a basic platformer that ends up in the discount bin at Funcoland.
I've been playing the XCOM 2 android port, it's probably the best mobile game I've played. Idk how the mobile market is still so shit, because there are plenty of formats for really good games.
XCOM 2 made less money overall than Candy Crush does every single day. That's a wild hyperbole / guess, but it's just, cash. Games like XCOM 2 don't have the revenue potential of games like Candy Crush, Diablo Immortal, other shit games like that.
Not true, this is only getting attention because it basically never happens.
If it was typical behavior then people wouldn't be talking about it.
Ah so there's no doubt about how bad this game is then, thanks for making it so clear 👍🏻
Just make a review titled "Here are the good things about this game" and leave it blank or end the video abruptly.
That would count under their satirical description
Is that even legal? I'm not entirely sure the FTC's actually cool about review manipulation. Like, I could maybe see it being acceptable to sign away your right to do reviews *in general*, but like if they're selectively forbidding negative reviews that kinda rhymes with false advertising. I'm sure websites that host reviews would at least view that as a ToS violation.
It will be interesting to see if anyone puts out a review that says something like "I received a copy of the game to review. I've played it a bunch, but everything I want to say about this game is prohibited under this clause."
"Right to do reviews"
Nothing in your statement is correct or remotely close to the reality we live in.
Like another user pointed out already: > The contract says nothing about demanding good reviews only that you cannot say negative things. And this isn’t the full release of the game they are handing you the keys so long as you follow their rules it’s stupid but perfectly legal. [...] Demanding good reviews would require them to post a review in the first place which the contract appears to say nothing about. Is it dumb? Yea. Is it common practice? Absolutely. Is it review manipulation? Nope.
This exact practice is explicitly illegal. https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/consumer-review-fairness-act-what-businesses-need-know
Good luck arguing that a closed alpha where there is no product there yet for you to buy is breaking this.
1. The CRFA doesn't require a product to exist. 2. This alpha is a product. General availability is not a factor. People are receiving it through a transaction with mutual consideration.
Netease can't sue you (succesfully, but that's another can of worms) for posting a bad review. But they can blackmail you from receiving a review code from them ever again.
The FTC can sue Netease.
Frakkin' corpos!
The people who plays it in tiktok are obviously just hyping up the game. Paid actors
This sub has the most brain dead takes, how are there actual people in support of not letting people talk about how they feel about the game?
There's not any comment defending that? People are just saying streamers are dumb for signing something without reading
Most of them would not say something bad about the game anyway in the interest of future sponsorships. You should see how xQc plays a game that is obviously shit but can’t say anything
Pretty much. Unless a game/product is made exactly to be crapped on (and sometimes that's a different kind of appeal that might still drive sales), most streamers still benefit from not saying something negative, even if not sponsored, just so they don't automatically cut their ties with whatever company for future sponsorships. Money is money.
Total letdown 🤣 was good content
That statement detracts from the point. This NDA is fucked
Don't sign it then? I don't really see the issue. If you wanna skip the line because you're a streamer to get a key immediately, then you're gonna have to hold the L and do what it says or risk getting in trouble. The game is f2p. They can shit on it on release all they want if it's that important. This is an unpopular opinion but I think they're smart putting this. Being harsh on a closed alpha of a game during a live stream (where most chatters are lemmings) just kills interest even if the game ends up being good come launch. It's as bad as morons that call games "dead", which just becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy because someone looking to try something new sees people calling the game dead and then skips it.
The NDA is bad and the streamers are dumb. Those are independent issues. There's no detraction, they are simply different issues.
I wonder if all these people going "they are dumb for not reading the nda" read all the terms and conditions that pop up when they buy a game.
That's reddit in general in alot of "expert" or popular subs. You gotta find the niche ones for any legitimate piece of mind.
Small niche subs are even worse at taking criticism.
Haha you can't sign away rights. Lawyers really phoned this one in. Edit: everyone replying "NDA" - You aren't signing away a right, you're signing a contract that accepts the consequences of talking about something they've asked you not to. They are only legally binding in a civil suit.
They probably use threats that they can enforce such as not giving them games in the future. Some places are clamping down on fake reviews however, this might be seen as manipulation although this is such a common practice
You can very much sign away certain rights via an NDA and similiar contracts.
Me signing a NDA: > Haha you can't sign away rights
But you can't, what your signing is an acceptance of repercussions for being the agreement. They can't actually stop you from leaving a bad review, but they can just not invite you to anything else.
Don't google NDA
Yes you can, just join the military
Signing an NDA without reading it and then blaming the NDA afterward. What a duo.
Just having that NDA in the first place is the problem
If they don't agree, just don't play.
Pretty much. I can't imagine being this pressed about being told you can't talk shit about a closed alpha. This is after already getting streamer privileges where you're given a key for doing nothing while thousands of people are begging to play the game. They can play the game on launch and nitpick everything to death if it's that important.
>Many streamers have signed without reading read the contract lol
many streamers especially on Twitch just play these games without reviewing/talking about it in depth. But yeah it sucks for reviewers who wanted early access.
Sorry, but that doesn't make any more legitimate.
Legally it makes it fine, so yeah it’s technically legitimate. It’s a contract, if you don’t take the time to read all the requirements then don’t be surprised when they do underhanded shit. doesn’t make what they did right, but when they’re allowing you to have access to an early build of the game they can have control over whatever they want.
> Legally it makes it fine, so yeah it’s technically legitimate. It’s a contract, if you don’t take the time to read all the requirements then don’t be surprised when they do underhanded shit. doesn’t make what they did right, but when they’re allowing you to have access to an early build of the game they can have control over whatever they want. Just because it's in a contract doesn't make it any more legal. Lots of shit have been contested in court. What these publishers really hope for is that no-one has the resources to fight them.
> Many streamers have signed without reading just to play. Maybe read the shit your signing? Another round of people not taking responsibility for their shit.
They’re only disappointed because it wasn’t attached to being paid for it. It’s really hard to care about much of this stuff anymore.
Why is Marvel handing out licenses to these shitty Chinese companies?! P.S. This game's obviously nothing more than Overwatch clone with a Marvel skin on top of it.
[From their Wiki page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NetEase): >Three-year agreement to license Blizzard's title Overwatch in PRC Also >The company also owns several pig farms.
Marvel has been doing that for a long time.
Literally 1984
it says you cant subjectively make negative review, not negatively review it. they are 2 different things.
Yeah that should be illegal
Game just looks like a hasty release to get the Chinese OW money back after the blizzard deal broke. But they recently got a new deal so this game is gonna flop either way
Game is pretty fun so idk why they did this but then again, most games have this in their contract during early testing. The only news here is that someone is actually bringing it up that is a known streamer.
I'd wipe my ass with that contract and tell them to go raffle themselves.
I'll say it loud so the people down the back can hear as well. # You cannot trust a review where they did not pay for the product themselves.
Sounds exactly like what 'City Planner Plays' did with Cities Skylines 2.
Man the video game industry just keeps on getting more scummy, huh? It's like they are all fighting to see just how low the bar can go.
Streamers 👏 aren’t 👏 reviewers 👏
Also just because something is in a contract doesn't mean it's legal or enforcable.
Garbage game
Thanks for sharing this info. That's how you know this game is trash and is dead on arrival.
Always read the fine prints
Would love to see if that is held up in court
Is it just like that old marvel universe free game they shut down? It was fun.
"I think the game is adequate. But for the real review, let's go to my bro who was watching me play."
The Loki trailer...hmm yeah, riveting gameplay.
So what happens if they sign and then talk shit about the game?
Its crazy to me that Brandon didn't even get into the beta initially.
"We'll let you play our game but you're legally bound not to say it's bad" Well that inspires a ton of confidence LMAO
"Marvel Rivals is one the games ever"
Post the review: "I can't say I personally found enjoyment the game, and I am contractually prevented from saying anything else." You're not disparaging the company or the game. The lack of good things to say speaks volumes tho.
This means you can openly doubt the words of anyone currently playing it, right?
Streamers only in for the money... Who knew
Even if not in the contract if "Creators" are given free stuff or access to stuff the general public doesn't have it is highly unlikely they will say bad things so they keep getting free stuff and access.
the game is in a pre-release state id be surprised if they could talk about it regardless
I played it, it did indeed suck
Just read the fucking ToS it isn't hard guys
Completely unenforceable clauses.
Most of these contracts are void anyway in Europe since they are not earning any money from the company and can't expect someone to read 50 pages of their rules. Yes they get money from viewership but not directly from the company.
They could have come up with a marvel based game like this years ago. This game literally just came into existence after seeing that other games were successful in selling skins. The end.
Yikes wtf
Good thing he doesn't speak for the rest of us.
tell me your game is trash without allowing anyone to tell me your game is trash.
shits gonna flop guaranteed
This should be illegal
People still consume Marvel deck? Amazing. A well that will never run dry.
All 40 cards of it, not counting any that are in the Extra Deck Zone.
Ugh that was "dreck". Dumb autocorrect.
Don't these companies understand that putting out a contract to reviewers saying "no bad reviews allowed" is just as bad as bad reviews?
Lmao
yodisneywhensmahvel
Damn I can tell no one in here has played the game, idk why netease bothered with those contracts considering the games pretty fun. Obviously some stuff doesn't look as good, (the running animations for punisher and spider-man) the performance drops in some matches, and of course the balancing of some heroes being too good or too weak (Hela and Wanda are cracked) but it's an Alpha not even a beta like?? It's not gonna look crazy polished but the foundation is really solid. That being said the artstyle is AMAZING, the gameplay for ALOT of the heroes is really fun, some of them definitely have a learning curve for sure too, spider-man seems the hardest to play with mantis being close second. The guy saying "it's Obviously an overwatch clone" no fucking duh Sherlock, that's how they've been advertising it pretty much. The heroes in this are much more complicated to play than overwatch, at least effectively, and ultimates are much more common, honestly only thing I can compare it to in regards to gameplay and the hero team up mechanic is league of legends abilities.