I whole heartedly agree with you Gooney, but no project manager of a multi-million dollar game dares take a leak without first asking the legal department for permission. I imagine NDAs are seen as more of cover your ass, catch-all legal protection that the suits require before a game ships rather than a tool developers believe will help them make better games. And of course really bad games do want to rely on the NDA as a way of keeping bad press from slipping out before they can make a few sales.
Perhaps the answer is extensive closed beta testing (with a full NDA in effect) but open public weekends where people are free to play and comment as they see fit.
They are all doing the same thing anyway, surely it cant possibly matter if you call them Health points, Hit points or ...what does Turbine call health...Aura points or some such stupid thing; scratch that who cares. Is anyone, any where, actually doing something so singularily special that it merits all this corporate secrecy? Who doesnt know that Tabula Rasa wont be FPS style? Or that Huxley will, or that the Agency looks cool but its SOE so will probably be stupid, or that Pirates of the Burning Sea will be almost impossible to pull off (face it the Caribbean isnt large enough for 0.0 space...sorry).
The point is that all games are being made within a budget, a certain amount of time for a certain amount of features. Even if they really did have something ground breaking no one else would be able to copy it because they are already assdeep into their own production scheduals. Even if they did manage to find out and implement an innovation, they would do it with the knowledge that it was something thier consumer base would actually want.
Besides, we all have made up our minds by the time open beta launches and NDA drops as to whether or not a game will sink or swim. Just look at all of the releases since EQ2 and Wow. Without exception, every game has performed almost exactly as people had guessed as soon as NDA was lifted. In fact, if you discount fanboy noise, a company could actually use that information to its advantage. If they reacted early enough to it they could probably dial in on to what people actually want.
Think of it as a Web 2.0 idea tranlated to MMOs. Lets call it MMO 2.0.
Just think how DDO would have went if they actually had gone out with thier idea when they still had the chance to make changes. Of course youd still have the problem of some companies failing to see the light even when everyone is telling them they are barking up the wrong tree. I dont know how this could be implemented but Im sure clever people could figure it out.
It is in a companies interest to create a product that their customer base wants. How can they possibly know if their customers dont know what they are doing. Of course, it could be argued that people dont really know what they want, and I'll agree to that, although Im damn certain though that customers know what they dont want. Just look at AC2 and how that completely tanked, I gotta wonder what Turbine was thinking, it almost felt like they were going after the seseme street crowd, same with EQ2 when it launched. One of those games disappeared, the other listened to the customers and improved thier game.
So, do I want a total destruction of NDAs? On a philosophical level probably, but on a realistic level I do understand that some things should probably be kept quite, but theres a lot that can be divulged without giving away the milk for free.
Its all about making better games.
Serving your customers better so that you can create enthusiastic fans.
Becoming more profitable.
Breaking the terrible stagnation in MMOs.
-Gooney
Backspace is my enemy as it just went to the previous page, erasing everything I wrote so....take 2!
Exactly what difference would it make if NDAs did not exist -- do you expect to contribute something? To play devil's advocate, why do so many players feel this sense of entitlement to know or have a say in the development of a game which is the brainchild of a select few individual programmers with their own vision of "what's cool and fun"? I'm sure there are others but I can only think of once instance where a consumer product's developer openly interacted with its target audience--Peter Jackson's making of the Lord of the Rings. He was very open with the community but I think that was more to have buy-in from them than to solicit ideas -- he surely had his own vision of the way it would be directed.
Why aren't board games designed with more player interaction? Why don't we see automobiles designed with the interaction of the masses? There are so few models yet so many different tastes? Because the designer has his vision and while sticking to it wants to make it as appealing to whoever s/he wants to. The problem is that everyone can't be satisfied but that's okay -- the key is that the developer has to understand and deliver to his target audience and some people have to understand that a product just isn't meant or going to satisfy them. That second part may be a shocker for some but it's reality, it's marketing to demographics.
As you can guess, I'm one of those who believes NDAs are good for gamers. Beta is meant for squashing bugs and balancing play where necessary (unless it's SWG or PotBS in which case game mechanics can change entirely during and after the fact). With an NDA, developers can largely control people from crying about beta "nerfs" and changes to their favorite features "that just totally ruin the game". As I said earlier, bad press (regardless if it is accurate) travels further and lingers much longer than the good press (it's a fact of marketing.) Considering launch is the most critical time for determining an mmo's success, I think it's reasonable for a developer to keep things under wraps until they're in the polishing stage/open beta stage. I don't think gamers can contribute much other than economies of scale to late beta stage testing because the game ultimately is made based on the vision of the head designer whose objective is to implement the systems to support it.
I disagree with the OP. It's not all about secrets. Bad press, regardless of how accurate or inaccurate it is, travels much farther and lingers much longer than good press does. Alpha and even early beta builds are always in rough shape so the purpose of an NDA is to keep the kneejerk reactionists and those people who need to feel special trying to break news from potentially wrecking a multi-million dollar investment with cries of "DOOM!!!!11!!" when it isn't justified early on. Yes, I wrote "early on" -- NDA eventually drops before release and the critics can all come pouring in and your decision can then be made whether you'll buy the game or not; at least then you'll have information based on the nearly final product to act upon.
I see, your just not getting it.
Think about what not having an NDA would force a game company to do. Probably make them ensure their product was tight before they showed anyone. Isnt that a logical conclusion to derive?
Everyone with an objection seems to believe that the NDA protects the developer from bad press in the event that thier game is crap. As a gamer, I take exception to that, as should any of you.
Alternatvily, NDA prevents people talking about features that simply arent done, they worry that a game would be ridiculed for not being feature complete, the game would in effect recieve an unfair evaluation. In that case a company would be daft to show it to people, it would be better to continue work until the "fine tuning stage", when the game was feature complete.
Everyone knows that when a product is in beta stage that it is in an unfinished form, but as many have pointed out , by the time the product is in beta most systems are more or less "set in stone". See anything odd there? How does an NDA make your life as a gamer better? It doesnt, the exact opposite is true, it gives a company that created a product that they are almost sure will be poorly received a chance to trick people into buying it. Vanguard anyone? Dark and Light?
NDAs are bad for you as a gamer and as a consumer. They are being used not to protect a product but to keep consumers in the dark about a product. I say that if a game maker wants to use US, the public as beta tester, free labor then we have the right as a communtiy to discuss that product.
Is that so unreasonable? Disclosure? Games and MMOs in particular are relient on willing complicity of its consumer base, on the self same consumers to actually pony up and provide actual work in the completion of thier for profit venture.
Who else in business does that? No one, why do we accept that? Then willingly hold back information from the very group that we actually are a part of?
I disagree with the OP. It's not all about secrets. Bad press, regardless of how accurate or inaccurate it is, travels much farther and lingers much longer than good press does. Alpha and even early beta builds are always in rough shape so the purpose of an NDA is to keep the kneejerk reactionists and those people who need to feel special trying to break news from potentially wrecking a multi-million dollar investment with cries of "DOOM!!!!11!!" when it isn't justified early on. Yes, I wrote "early on" -- NDA eventually drops before release and the critics can all come pouring in and your decision can then be made whether you'll buy the game or not; at least then you'll have information based on the nearly final product to act upon.
I see, your just not getting it.
Think about what not having an NDA would force a game company to do. Probably make them ensure their product was tight before they showed anyone. Isnt that a logical conclusion to derive?
Everyone with an objection seems to believe that the NDA protects the developer from bad press in the event that thier game is crap. As a gamer, I take exception to that, as should any of you.
Alternatvily, NDA prevents people talking about features that simply arent done, they worry that a game would be ridiculed for not being feature complete, the game would in effect recieve an unfair evaluation. In that case a company would be daft to show it to people, it would be better to continue work until the "fine tuning stage", when the game was feature complete.
Everyone knows that when a product is in beta stage that it is in an unfinished form, but as many have pointed out , by the time the product is in beta most systems are more or less "set in stone". See anything odd there? How does an NDA make your life as a gamer better? It doesnt, the exact opposite is true, it gives a company that created a product that they are almost sure will be poorly received a chance to trick people into buying it. Vanguard anyone? Dark and Light?
NDAs are bad for you as a gamer and as a consumer. They are being used not to protect a product but to keep consumers in the dark about a product. I say that if a game maker wants to use US, the public as beta tester, free labor then we have the right as a communtiy to discuss that product.
Is that so unreasonable? Disclosure? Games and MMOs in particular are relient on willing complicity of its consumer base, on the self same consumers to actually pony up and provide actual work in the completion of thier for profit venture.
Who else in business does that? No one, why do we accept that? Then willingly hold back information from the very group that we actually are a part of?
-Gooney
Please don't mistake my disagreement with your concept for misunderstanding it -- it's simply arrogant and off-putting. We're not talking rocket science here but when the NDA drops, if the game still sucks, people will know about it because beta testers will talk about it. Furthermore, typically open beta kicks in afterwards and then everyone gets to see first hand and judge for themselves if a game is good (not to overlook the fact that at even larger pool of consumers now can talk about it.) I don't know about Dark and Light but people were avidly complaining about VG not being done after the NDA dropped and before it was released.
If you knew anything about software coding and testing, you would know how difficult it can be to release something perfectly correct on the first shot. The company has to repeatedly test the software somehow and internal testers can only test so much without sequestering more people to help. NDA provides cover so that a reasonably sized group can go through the game, pick off bugs and typos as well as review gameplay balance which will all surely yield quite a few changes--the company doesn't have to declare any of that information and it shouldn't matter so long as it is cleared up before going go-live. Complaints about an alpha/beta build can be needlessly damaging and the developer does deserve some protection for their investment (especially considering how people react to varying degrees of speculation.)
And what's with this tangent about "I say that if a game maker wants to use US, the public as beta tester, free labor then we have the right as a communtiy to discuss that product."? Beta testers do have a forum to discuss that product as they're the ones involved in the transaction (free sneak peek and playtime for reporting bugs). How does a private transaction amongst a small sampling of individuals confer community rights?
When you write, I don't read consumer protection in your words--it really sounds like you're talking sour grapes here even though you proclaim to avoid betas now.
I disagree with the OP. It's not all about secrets. Bad press, regardless of how accurate or inaccurate it is, travels much farther and lingers much longer than good press does. Alpha and even early beta builds are always in rough shape so the purpose of an NDA is to keep the kneejerk reactionists and those people who need to feel special trying to break news from potentially wrecking a multi-million dollar investment with cries of "DOOM!!!!11!!" when it isn't justified early on. Yes, I wrote "early on" -- NDA eventually drops before release and the critics can all come pouring in and your decision can then be made whether you'll buy the game or not; at least then you'll have information based on the nearly final product to act upon.
I see, your just not getting it.
Think about what not having an NDA would force a game company to do. Probably make them ensure their product was tight before they showed anyone. Isnt that a logical conclusion to derive? No its not a logical conclusion, Vanguard is the proof of this. Everyone, beta testers, open testers, the devs themselves KNEW and stated public the game is not in a finished launch state.
Everyone with an objection seems to believe that the NDA protects the developer from bad press in the event that thier game is crap. As a gamer, I take exception to that, as should any of you. It does protect them from unwarrented biased bad press. Gamers are heavily opinionated some to the point of blindness. Without an NDA alot of games, good ones that a particularly vocal crowd that may not like the game could go blasting it all over the boards in its early stages, if its negative enough based purely on early early beta stages it'll scare of customers. Hell it could even scare off investors causing the game to get cancelled. You'd be surprised what money investors listen too.
Alternatvily, NDA prevents people talking about features that simply arent done, they worry that a game would be ridiculed for not being feature complete, the game would in effect recieve an unfair evaluation. In that case a company would be daft to show it to people, it would be better to continue work until the "fine tuning stage", when the game was feature complete.
The whole point of beta is to point these broken or unfinished features out to the devs, obviously if it gets completely ignored the moment the NDA gets lifted people are going to speak out about it. Thus giving gamers who were relying on this feature to be awsome MORE than enough time to cancel their pre order.
Everyone knows that when a product is in beta stage that it is in an unfinished form, but as many have pointed out , by the time the product is in beta most systems are more or less "set in stone". See anything odd there? How does an NDA make your life as a gamer better? It doesnt, the exact opposite is true, it gives a company that created a product that they are almost sure will be poorly received a chance to trick people into buying it. Vanguard anyone? Dark and Light?
Yes alot of things are set in stone by beta but most of those things are not hidden from the public, they're usually stated parts of the game talked openly about on the website. But thats nto stopped them from making improvements or full out changes once the game goes live and they have a much LOUDER outcry (as in it has to really really suck like the grouping problem from EQ2)
NDAs are bad for you as a gamer and as a consumer. They are being used not to protect a product but to keep consumers in the dark about a product. I say that if a game maker wants to use US, the public as beta tester, free labor then we have the right as a communtiy to discuss that product.
I just have to disagree with you on based on the fact none of your arguments make logical sense. Every game can't be the same and work the same. If 'some' know it all gamer who thinks he knows it all had his way they would all be the same, his way. NDA's are not bad for real gamers that find ways to stay informed, they're bad for lazy people who tend to only go on the word of biased judgemental gamers (which most of us are in some shape or form).
They're not using us as free labor, they're not requiring us to work hours. On some rare occasions they ask you to fill out a form what every so often? Doesn't sound too laborous. Its like knowing they're giving away a new sandwich at the deli to see if its worth putting on the menu.
Is that so unreasonable? Disclosure? Games and MMOs in particular are relient on willing complicity of its consumer base, on the self same consumers to actually pony up and provide actual work in the completion of thier for profit venture.
Again what work? Logging in? Toying around with a particular build and writing a comment about it? What work are you really doing other than giving feed back, alot of companies do this. Some have NDA's and some dont (guess you've never been asked to give feed back on products in malls or on mall service). Hell some medical testing is this way, some pay, some don't. Some, if not most all require an NDA of some sort as well.
Who else in business does that? No one, why do we accept that? Then willingly hold back information from the very group that we actually are a part of?
-Gooney
The NDA protects games and gamers. It protects gamers from unwarrented, uneducated, biased spin press created by someone who has no idea what the hell a Beta is and expected it to be perfect, who instead of going to devs with their concerns went straight to a forum board and yacked about a feature thats still in development, and/or from someone who knows what beta is but never read a peep about the game so they expected (hype) something that was never promised (happens alot).
I'm quite happy to have NDA's in place, if the game is seriously bad from bugs it comes out long before launch NDA or not.
Just to better emphasize my overal randomly posted point look at SWG. I was in phase 2 beta for that game and with in 10 mins i was bored out of my mind. They didn't have much game play in yet it was mostly testing mechanics like creating bands or creating camps. If my thoughts about the game had come out during that phase it could of been just as disasterous for game as NGE was in the end. There's always going to be someone out there thats going to spread it around like the telephone game till the whole thing is blown out of porportion or worse yet they'll think its the end all be all and that no change can be made at all thus creating unwarrented negative spin.
BTW (saw another post) Forums like this one ARE held accountable by game companies for allowing NDA breaching posts to remain. If they don't enforce the NDA they can lose privilages to press events, interviews, Beta Key Giveaway events and more.
NDA's are Good for Everyone!
Please Refer to Doom Cat with all conspiracies & evil corporation complaints. He'll give you the simple explination of..WE"RE ALL DOOMED!
I disagree with the OP. It's not all about secrets. Bad press, regardless of how accurate or inaccurate it is, travels much farther and lingers much longer than good press does. Alpha and even early beta builds are always in rough shape so the purpose of an NDA is to keep the kneejerk reactionists and those people who need to feel special trying to break news from potentially wrecking a multi-million dollar investment with cries of "DOOM!!!!11!!" when it isn't justified early on. Yes, I wrote "early on" -- NDA eventually drops before release and the critics can all come pouring in and your decision can then be made whether you'll buy the game or not; at least then you'll have information based on the nearly final product to act upon.
I see, your just not getting it.
Think about what not having an NDA would force a game company to do. Probably make them ensure their product was tight before they showed anyone. Isnt that a logical conclusion to derive?
Everyone with an objection seems to believe that the NDA protects the developer from bad press in the event that thier game is crap. As a gamer, I take exception to that, as should any of you.
Alternatvily, NDA prevents people talking about features that simply arent done, they worry that a game would be ridiculed for not being feature complete, the game would in effect recieve an unfair evaluation. In that case a company would be daft to show it to people, it would be better to continue work until the "fine tuning stage", when the game was feature complete.
Everyone knows that when a product is in beta stage that it is in an unfinished form, but as many have pointed out , by the time the product is in beta most systems are more or less "set in stone". See anything odd there? How does an NDA make your life as a gamer better? It doesnt, the exact opposite is true, it gives a company that created a product that they are almost sure will be poorly received a chance to trick people into buying it. Vanguard anyone? Dark and Light?
NDAs are bad for you as a gamer and as a consumer. They are being used not to protect a product but to keep consumers in the dark about a product. I say that if a game maker wants to use US, the public as beta tester, free labor then we have the right as a communtiy to discuss that product.
Is that so unreasonable? Disclosure? Games and MMOs in particular are relient on willing complicity of its consumer base, on the self same consumers to actually pony up and provide actual work in the completion of thier for profit venture.
Who else in business does that? No one, why do we accept that? Then willingly hold back information from the very group that we actually are a part of?
-Gooney
Please don't mistake my disagreement with your concept for misunderstanding it -- it's simply arrogant and off-putting. We're not talking rocket science here but when the NDA drops, if the game still sucks, people will know about it because beta testers will talk about it. Furthermore, typically open beta kicks in afterwards and then everyone gets to see first hand and judge for themselves if a game is good (not to overlook the fact that at even larger pool of consumers now can talk about it.) I don't know about Dark and Light but people were avidly complaining about VG not being done after the NDA dropped and before it was released.
If you knew anything about software coding and testing, you would know how difficult it can be to release something perfectly correct on the first shot. The company has to repeatedly test the software somehow and internal testers can only test so much without sequestering more people to help. NDA provides cover so that a reasonably sized group can go through the game, pick off bugs and typos as well as review gameplay balance which will all surely yield quite a few changes--the company doesn't have to declare any of that information and it shouldn't matter so long as it is cleared up before going go-live. Complaints about an alpha/beta build can be needlessly damaging and the developer does deserve some protection for their investment (especially considering how people react to varying degrees of speculation.)
And what's with this tangent about "I say that if a game maker wants to use US, the public as beta tester, free labor then we have the right as a communtiy to discuss that product."? Beta testers do have a forum to discuss that product as they're the ones involved in the transaction (free sneak peek and playtime for reporting bugs). How does a private transaction amongst a small sampling of individuals confer community rights?
When you write, I don't read consumer protection in your words--it really sounds like you're talking sour grapes here even though you proclaim to avoid betas now.
Man please, just stop with the jabs, its obvious that your an intelligent human, I still don't think you get what I mean. Its aggrevatingly obvious when you take the last jab about sour grapes.
I have stated multiple times why I believe NDA's are bad. You've stated they are good, but you have not explained why they are good for ME the gamer. I get the feeling that your just arguing for arguments sake, thats ok I guess, it gives me an outlet too.
ASSUME that I am an IT professional, and have worked my entire working life in the design, development, testing, release and support of software products. ASSUME that I am under so many NDA's the I simply can not even discuss any active projects.
Now imagine what possible reason I would have to be against NDA's.
1. Im just mad because I cant get or share info about a game I want to know about. (This is wrong, I applied for 1 beta in the last 5 years)
2. I feel that NDAs are being abused by companies to take advantage of overzealous fans (True)
3. I feel that Beta Tests are conducted under the cover of NDAs to lure fanboys to even greater levels of hysteria; guaranteed hype, earned or not. (True)
4. Im just taking a piss, because Im bored at work. (False, Im writing this at home)
5. Im concerned with the direction of this industry, Ive seen how different creative media have been plowed under, repackaged, and regurgitated. (True)
6. NDAs are corporate thumbscrews on an industry that was created by gamers for gamers, but has been assimilated in many many ways. (True)
I will readily admit that I drug in my personal dislike of Beta testing, not because I have any particular axe to grind. I do however believe that anyone contributing their own time and energy to a product should be compensated for it. I believe that this whole industry and MMO's in particular take advantage of the good will and excitement of players for their own benefit. Its a real Ike Turner relationship between the company and beta testers, and gamers do it willingly and whats more will defend obvious shite because they have invested so much of thier souls in it.
Games are a creative media that evokes many emotions, christ its like crackdealers offering free test samples to junkies just to make sure the batch wont kill their real good customers. They dont care about the junkies they will buy regardless of quality... they are after all junkies.
NDA's are designed to protect and cater to the company, and I do not think it is beneficial to the consumer in any way.
As most of these companies are "in it for the money" I am quite sure they have weighed the pros and cons carefully.
Besides, I have been in quite a few betas, and a couple of alphas and at least when it comes to betas they rarely listen to the players in any case, if they had the whole world to listen to would not matter, deaf is deaf, regardless of the sound level.
I just think it is a "required" piece of paper, lawyers and publishers and venture capitalists and other investors probably demands it.
That is the way of the bussiness world I gather.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Originally posted by Jerek_
I wonder if you honestly even believe what you type, or if you live in a made up world of facts. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I disagree with the OP. It's not all about secrets. Bad press, regardless of how accurate or inaccurate it is, travels much farther and lingers much longer than good press does. Alpha and even early beta builds are always in rough shape so the purpose of an NDA is to keep the kneejerk reactionists and those people who need to feel special trying to break news from potentially wrecking a multi-million dollar investment with cries of "DOOM!!!!11!!" when it isn't justified early on. Yes, I wrote "early on" -- NDA eventually drops before release and the critics can all come pouring in and your decision can then be made whether you'll buy the game or not; at least then you'll have information based on the nearly final product to act upon.
I see, your just not getting it.
Think about what not having an NDA would force a game company to do. Probably make them ensure their product was tight before they showed anyone. Isnt that a logical conclusion to derive?
Everyone with an objection seems to believe that the NDA protects the developer from bad press in the event that thier game is crap. As a gamer, I take exception to that, as should any of you.
Alternatvily, NDA prevents people talking about features that simply arent done, they worry that a game would be ridiculed for not being feature complete, the game would in effect recieve an unfair evaluation. In that case a company would be daft to show it to people, it would be better to continue work until the "fine tuning stage", when the game was feature complete.
Everyone knows that when a product is in beta stage that it is in an unfinished form, but as many have pointed out , by the time the product is in beta most systems are more or less "set in stone". See anything odd there? How does an NDA make your life as a gamer better? It doesnt, the exact opposite is true, it gives a company that created a product that they are almost sure will be poorly received a chance to trick people into buying it. Vanguard anyone? Dark and Light?
NDAs are bad for you as a gamer and as a consumer. They are being used not to protect a product but to keep consumers in the dark about a product. I say that if a game maker wants to use US, the public as beta tester, free labor then we have the right as a communtiy to discuss that product.
Is that so unreasonable? Disclosure? Games and MMOs in particular are relient on willing complicity of its consumer base, on the self same consumers to actually pony up and provide actual work in the completion of thier for profit venture.
Who else in business does that? No one, why do we accept that? Then willingly hold back information from the very group that we actually are a part of?
-Gooney
Please don't mistake my disagreement with your concept for misunderstanding it -- it's simply arrogant and off-putting. We're not talking rocket science here but when the NDA drops, if the game still sucks, people will know about it because beta testers will talk about it. Furthermore, typically open beta kicks in afterwards and then everyone gets to see first hand and judge for themselves if a game is good (not to overlook the fact that at even larger pool of consumers now can talk about it.) I don't know about Dark and Light but people were avidly complaining about VG not being done after the NDA dropped and before it was released.
If you knew anything about software coding and testing, you would know how difficult it can be to release something perfectly correct on the first shot. The company has to repeatedly test the software somehow and internal testers can only test so much without sequestering more people to help. NDA provides cover so that a reasonably sized group can go through the game, pick off bugs and typos as well as review gameplay balance which will all surely yield quite a few changes--the company doesn't have to declare any of that information and it shouldn't matter so long as it is cleared up before going go-live. Complaints about an alpha/beta build can be needlessly damaging and the developer does deserve some protection for their investment (especially considering how people react to varying degrees of speculation.)
And what's with this tangent about "I say that if a game maker wants to use US, the public as beta tester, free labor then we have the right as a communtiy to discuss that product."? Beta testers do have a forum to discuss that product as they're the ones involved in the transaction (free sneak peek and playtime for reporting bugs). How does a private transaction amongst a small sampling of individuals confer community rights?
When you write, I don't read consumer protection in your words--it really sounds like you're talking sour grapes here even though you proclaim to avoid betas now.
Man please, just stop with the jabs, its obvious that your an intelligent human, I still don't think you get what I mean. Its aggrevatingly obvious when you take the last jab about sour grapes.
I have stated multiple times why I believe NDA's are bad. You've stated they are good, but you have not explained why they are good for ME the gamer. I get the feeling that your just arguing for arguments sake, thats ok I guess, it gives me an outlet too.
ASSUME that I am an IT professional, and have worked my entire working life in the design, development, testing, release and support of software products. ASSUME that I am under so many NDA's the I simply can not even discuss any active projects.
Now imagine what possible reason I would have to be against NDA's.
1. Im just mad because I cant get or share info about a game I want to know about. (This is wrong, I applied for 1 beta in the last 5 years)
2. I feel that NDAs are being abused by companies to take advantage of overzealous fans (True)
3. I feel that Beta Tests are conducted under the cover of NDAs to lure fanboys to even greater levels of hysteria; guaranteed hype, earned or not. (True)
4. Im just taking a piss, because Im bored at work. (False, Im writing this at home)
5. Im concerned with the direction of this industry, Ive seen how different creative media have been plowed under, repackaged, and regurgitated. (True)
6. NDAs are corporate thumbscrews on an industry that was created by gamers for gamers, but has been assimilated in many many ways. (True)
I will readily admit that I drug in my personal dislike of Beta testing, not because I have any particular axe to grind. I do however believe that anyone contributing their own time and energy to a product should be compensated for it. I believe that this whole industry and MMO's in particular take advantage of the good will and excitement of players for their own benefit. Its a real Ike Turner relationship between the company and beta testers, and gamers do it willingly and whats more will defend obvious shite because they have invested so much of thier souls in it.
Games are a creative media that evokes many emotions, christ its like crackdealers offering free test samples to junkies just to make sure the batch wont kill their real good customers. They dont care about the junkies they will buy regardless of quality... they are after all junkies.
-Gooney
Firstly, my responses aren't meant to be jabs--I'm just conveying back to you what your prior posts sounded like. Ignore them for a few days and then try re-reading them.
Apologies aside, I think elvenangel eloquently summed up how NDAs benefit the consumer as protecting other gamers from the unnecessary bad press vis a vis protecting the developer's investment from the oft-mentioned unnecessary bad press that could circulate from alpha/early beta testing.
Regarding points 2 and 3, I feel that NDAs play no part in fanboism -- that's simply a minority of immature hobbyists whose speculation and attachment has run amok. I don't think you can attribute the craziness of the Vanguard vanboi's to NDAs, with or without it. As far as 5 goes, I also disagree with that citing my reasons in post 28. If you want to see something different in the industry, vote with your wallet or else build it yourself because consumers aren't going to change Richard Garriot's or Raph Kosters vision for a particular game when it is in development. As for 6, I see it as.....fact without relevance, it's necessary protection for a multi-million dollar investment.
although you make a great point, but i think it makes those game hyped with curiousity and a time for you to imagine how the game will turn out. and of course when it is published...... it will be a whole different game as you imagined...... >.< and i learned ithis from Dark and Light
I have stated multiple times why I believe NDA's are bad. You've stated they are good, but you have not explained why they are good for ME the gamer.
Well, some other folks have stated a few ways NDA's benefit the gamer, and I'll grant that they aren't many.
But ask yourself, is everything a developer does supposed to benefit the gamer? Isn't it possible they do things strictly to further their own selfish needs/wants? Sometimes gamers receive unintended benefits as a result of a dev's actions, but it doesn't mean it was intentional or even desired by the company.
Games are made for one reason, to make money, plain and simple. Pleasing customers is only a secondary concern the companies are forced to do because we won't buy them if they don't at least try. (well, actually, sometimes we buy them anyways, even when they completely miss the mark in terms of what we gamers want)
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
NDA's are not meant for you, the gamer. They are intended to help protect the company, its IP rights and any unique feature implementations from being stolen and used by another company that has the financial backing to be able to develop it faster. There is also a degree of protection of privacy.
It's like coming up with a better version of the wheel - there is no way are you going to allow other people to utilize your idea's and work before you can profit from it yourselves. That's what NDA's are primarily for. They don't offer anything for the gamer, nor are they supposed to. What you DO get from beta testing is a chance to sneak peak a game and evaluate it for yourself before it goes live, and maybe even have some of your feedback and idea's used to improve the end product, but that is nothing to do with the NDA.
So it has nothing at all to do with people ripping their ideas off. It's all about hype and them controlling how their game is released.
It has absoloutely nothing to do with them not making new things, every game beta has NDA because they are letting you play the game before others. They don't want you to ruin the lore they are releasing, or post your opinions about the game to others who haven't had the chance to play it and put light on the game in a negative way just because it isn't to your taste.
I really laughed at your post about secrecy, it's just so you don't ruin the launch of the game with " this is crap, I hate it, look at this video or this screenshot...It's broken etc etc." If they didn't have NDA people would play a beta and just trash it for having bugs etc and people would take that opinion and not play the game.
Also, if they have new ideas...Most of the time they will build up hype about them, put alot of emphasis on them before launch, show videos of this particular feature being used in a good way. They don't want a 12 year old who lied about his age in the beta making a video of a small bug in the otherwise perfect new feature and complaining because he can't get it to work.
They want people to actually try the game themselves and if they are giving you the privilage to test the game before millions of other potential players you should do it on their terms, they choose to have it so you can't tell all your friends how things work etc or let them play your account.
EDIT: Missed out the most important reason for NDA.
They let press into test the game and tell them what they can and can't write about for a review. Undercover press could enter, without NDA, record videos etc and release all the features, bugs etc and totally ruin the launch of the game.
I think of games like Christmas. When you was a kid and woke up on Christmas morning, if you knew everything about every present you had, it would totally ruin it. Think of the new big MMORPG release like that, without NDA people would ruin it for you by divulging information you may not want to hear.
NDAs are very stupid. Especially since you can make a very generic post (like, "It's the same old crap we're used to with a couple superficial features. In return there's a lot of bugs and the idea of balance is something as faint as a fleeting dream") and it would apply to practically every MMO in beta out there. What can they do? Sue you for violating an NDA? For someone that never agreed to one?
Even if a company does anything special is what sells MMOs is not innovation, but craftsmanship. WoW was the most polished MMO at release and one that had a strong IP behind it. Gameplay wise it's nothing spectacular, but it looked great, ran great, and let everyone romp around in a world they had already played in before. Consumers care more about craftsmanship than features, and that is not something an NDA is going to make or break.
Comments
I whole heartedly agree with you Gooney, but no project manager of a multi-million dollar game dares take a leak without first asking the legal department for permission. I imagine NDAs are seen as more of cover your ass, catch-all legal protection that the suits require before a game ships rather than a tool developers believe will help them make better games. And of course really bad games do want to rely on the NDA as a way of keeping bad press from slipping out before they can make a few sales.
Perhaps the answer is extensive closed beta testing (with a full NDA in effect) but open public weekends where people are free to play and comment as they see fit.
D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium
Backspace is my enemy as it just went to the previous page, erasing everything I wrote so....take 2!
Exactly what difference would it make if NDAs did not exist -- do you expect to contribute something? To play devil's advocate, why do so many players feel this sense of entitlement to know or have a say in the development of a game which is the brainchild of a select few individual programmers with their own vision of "what's cool and fun"? I'm sure there are others but I can only think of once instance where a consumer product's developer openly interacted with its target audience--Peter Jackson's making of the Lord of the Rings. He was very open with the community but I think that was more to have buy-in from them than to solicit ideas -- he surely had his own vision of the way it would be directed.
Why aren't board games designed with more player interaction? Why don't we see automobiles designed with the interaction of the masses? There are so few models yet so many different tastes? Because the designer has his vision and while sticking to it wants to make it as appealing to whoever s/he wants to. The problem is that everyone can't be satisfied but that's okay -- the key is that the developer has to understand and deliver to his target audience and some people have to understand that a product just isn't meant or going to satisfy them. That second part may be a shocker for some but it's reality, it's marketing to demographics.
As you can guess, I'm one of those who believes NDAs are good for gamers. Beta is meant for squashing bugs and balancing play where necessary (unless it's SWG or PotBS in which case game mechanics can change entirely during and after the fact). With an NDA, developers can largely control people from crying about beta "nerfs" and changes to their favorite features "that just totally ruin the game". As I said earlier, bad press (regardless if it is accurate) travels further and lingers much longer than the good press (it's a fact of marketing.) Considering launch is the most critical time for determining an mmo's success, I think it's reasonable for a developer to keep things under wraps until they're in the polishing stage/open beta stage. I don't think gamers can contribute much other than economies of scale to late beta stage testing because the game ultimately is made based on the vision of the head designer whose objective is to implement the systems to support it.
Think about what not having an NDA would force a game company to do. Probably make them ensure their product was tight before they showed anyone. Isnt that a logical conclusion to derive?
Everyone with an objection seems to believe that the NDA protects the developer from bad press in the event that thier game is crap. As a gamer, I take exception to that, as should any of you.
Alternatvily, NDA prevents people talking about features that simply arent done, they worry that a game would be ridiculed for not being feature complete, the game would in effect recieve an unfair evaluation. In that case a company would be daft to show it to people, it would be better to continue work until the "fine tuning stage", when the game was feature complete.
Everyone knows that when a product is in beta stage that it is in an unfinished form, but as many have pointed out , by the time the product is in beta most systems are more or less "set in stone". See anything odd there? How does an NDA make your life as a gamer better? It doesnt, the exact opposite is true, it gives a company that created a product that they are almost sure will be poorly received a chance to trick people into buying it. Vanguard anyone? Dark and Light?
NDAs are bad for you as a gamer and as a consumer. They are being used not to protect a product but to keep consumers in the dark about a product. I say that if a game maker wants to use US, the public as beta tester, free labor then we have the right as a communtiy to discuss that product.
Is that so unreasonable? Disclosure? Games and MMOs in particular are relient on willing complicity of its consumer base, on the self same consumers to actually pony up and provide actual work in the completion of thier for profit venture.
Who else in business does that? No one, why do we accept that? Then willingly hold back information from the very group that we actually are a part of?
-Gooney
Think about what not having an NDA would force a game company to do. Probably make them ensure their product was tight before they showed anyone. Isnt that a logical conclusion to derive?
Everyone with an objection seems to believe that the NDA protects the developer from bad press in the event that thier game is crap. As a gamer, I take exception to that, as should any of you.
Alternatvily, NDA prevents people talking about features that simply arent done, they worry that a game would be ridiculed for not being feature complete, the game would in effect recieve an unfair evaluation. In that case a company would be daft to show it to people, it would be better to continue work until the "fine tuning stage", when the game was feature complete.
Everyone knows that when a product is in beta stage that it is in an unfinished form, but as many have pointed out , by the time the product is in beta most systems are more or less "set in stone". See anything odd there? How does an NDA make your life as a gamer better? It doesnt, the exact opposite is true, it gives a company that created a product that they are almost sure will be poorly received a chance to trick people into buying it. Vanguard anyone? Dark and Light?
NDAs are bad for you as a gamer and as a consumer. They are being used not to protect a product but to keep consumers in the dark about a product. I say that if a game maker wants to use US, the public as beta tester, free labor then we have the right as a communtiy to discuss that product.
Is that so unreasonable? Disclosure? Games and MMOs in particular are relient on willing complicity of its consumer base, on the self same consumers to actually pony up and provide actual work in the completion of thier for profit venture.
Who else in business does that? No one, why do we accept that? Then willingly hold back information from the very group that we actually are a part of?
-Gooney
Please don't mistake my disagreement with your concept for misunderstanding it -- it's simply arrogant and off-putting. We're not talking rocket science here but when the NDA drops, if the game still sucks, people will know about it because beta testers will talk about it. Furthermore, typically open beta kicks in afterwards and then everyone gets to see first hand and judge for themselves if a game is good (not to overlook the fact that at even larger pool of consumers now can talk about it.) I don't know about Dark and Light but people were avidly complaining about VG not being done after the NDA dropped and before it was released.
If you knew anything about software coding and testing, you would know how difficult it can be to release something perfectly correct on the first shot. The company has to repeatedly test the software somehow and internal testers can only test so much without sequestering more people to help. NDA provides cover so that a reasonably sized group can go through the game, pick off bugs and typos as well as review gameplay balance which will all surely yield quite a few changes--the company doesn't have to declare any of that information and it shouldn't matter so long as it is cleared up before going go-live. Complaints about an alpha/beta build can be needlessly damaging and the developer does deserve some protection for their investment (especially considering how people react to varying degrees of speculation.)
And what's with this tangent about "I say that if a game maker wants to use US, the public as beta tester, free labor then we have the right as a communtiy to discuss that product."? Beta testers do have a forum to discuss that product as they're the ones involved in the transaction (free sneak peek and playtime for reporting bugs). How does a private transaction amongst a small sampling of individuals confer community rights?
When you write, I don't read consumer protection in your words--it really sounds like you're talking sour grapes here even though you proclaim to avoid betas now.
I see, your just not getting it.
Think about what not having an NDA would force a game company to do. Probably make them ensure their product was tight before they showed anyone. Isnt that a logical conclusion to derive? No its not a logical conclusion, Vanguard is the proof of this. Everyone, beta testers, open testers, the devs themselves KNEW and stated public the game is not in a finished launch state.
Everyone with an objection seems to believe that the NDA protects the developer from bad press in the event that thier game is crap. As a gamer, I take exception to that, as should any of you. It does protect them from unwarrented biased bad press. Gamers are heavily opinionated some to the point of blindness. Without an NDA alot of games, good ones that a particularly vocal crowd that may not like the game could go blasting it all over the boards in its early stages, if its negative enough based purely on early early beta stages it'll scare of customers. Hell it could even scare off investors causing the game to get cancelled. You'd be surprised what money investors listen too.
Alternatvily, NDA prevents people talking about features that simply arent done, they worry that a game would be ridiculed for not being feature complete, the game would in effect recieve an unfair evaluation. In that case a company would be daft to show it to people, it would be better to continue work until the "fine tuning stage", when the game was feature complete.
The whole point of beta is to point these broken or unfinished features out to the devs, obviously if it gets completely ignored the moment the NDA gets lifted people are going to speak out about it. Thus giving gamers who were relying on this feature to be awsome MORE than enough time to cancel their pre order.
Everyone knows that when a product is in beta stage that it is in an unfinished form, but as many have pointed out , by the time the product is in beta most systems are more or less "set in stone". See anything odd there? How does an NDA make your life as a gamer better? It doesnt, the exact opposite is true, it gives a company that created a product that they are almost sure will be poorly received a chance to trick people into buying it. Vanguard anyone? Dark and Light?
Yes alot of things are set in stone by beta but most of those things are not hidden from the public, they're usually stated parts of the game talked openly about on the website. But thats nto stopped them from making improvements or full out changes once the game goes live and they have a much LOUDER outcry (as in it has to really really suck like the grouping problem from EQ2)
NDAs are bad for you as a gamer and as a consumer. They are being used not to protect a product but to keep consumers in the dark about a product. I say that if a game maker wants to use US, the public as beta tester, free labor then we have the right as a communtiy to discuss that product.
I just have to disagree with you on based on the fact none of your arguments make logical sense. Every game can't be the same and work the same. If 'some' know it all gamer who thinks he knows it all had his way they would all be the same, his way. NDA's are not bad for real gamers that find ways to stay informed, they're bad for lazy people who tend to only go on the word of biased judgemental gamers (which most of us are in some shape or form).
They're not using us as free labor, they're not requiring us to work hours. On some rare occasions they ask you to fill out a form what every so often? Doesn't sound too laborous. Its like knowing they're giving away a new sandwich at the deli to see if its worth putting on the menu.
Is that so unreasonable? Disclosure? Games and MMOs in particular are relient on willing complicity of its consumer base, on the self same consumers to actually pony up and provide actual work in the completion of thier for profit venture.
Again what work? Logging in? Toying around with a particular build and writing a comment about it? What work are you really doing other than giving feed back, alot of companies do this. Some have NDA's and some dont (guess you've never been asked to give feed back on products in malls or on mall service). Hell some medical testing is this way, some pay, some don't. Some, if not most all require an NDA of some sort as well.
Who else in business does that? No one, why do we accept that? Then willingly hold back information from the very group that we actually are a part of?
-Gooney
The NDA protects games and gamers. It protects gamers from unwarrented, uneducated, biased spin press created by someone who has no idea what the hell a Beta is and expected it to be perfect, who instead of going to devs with their concerns went straight to a forum board and yacked about a feature thats still in development, and/or from someone who knows what beta is but never read a peep about the game so they expected (hype) something that was never promised (happens alot).
I'm quite happy to have NDA's in place, if the game is seriously bad from bugs it comes out long before launch NDA or not.
Just to better emphasize my overal randomly posted point look at SWG. I was in phase 2 beta for that game and with in 10 mins i was bored out of my mind. They didn't have much game play in yet it was mostly testing mechanics like creating bands or creating camps. If my thoughts about the game had come out during that phase it could of been just as disasterous for game as NGE was in the end. There's always going to be someone out there thats going to spread it around like the telephone game till the whole thing is blown out of porportion or worse yet they'll think its the end all be all and that no change can be made at all thus creating unwarrented negative spin.
BTW (saw another post) Forums like this one ARE held accountable by game companies for allowing NDA breaching posts to remain. If they don't enforce the NDA they can lose privilages to press events, interviews, Beta Key Giveaway events and more.
NDA's are Good for Everyone!
Please Refer to Doom Cat with all conspiracies & evil corporation complaints. He'll give you the simple explination of..WE"RE ALL DOOMED!
Think about what not having an NDA would force a game company to do. Probably make them ensure their product was tight before they showed anyone. Isnt that a logical conclusion to derive?
Everyone with an objection seems to believe that the NDA protects the developer from bad press in the event that thier game is crap. As a gamer, I take exception to that, as should any of you.
Alternatvily, NDA prevents people talking about features that simply arent done, they worry that a game would be ridiculed for not being feature complete, the game would in effect recieve an unfair evaluation. In that case a company would be daft to show it to people, it would be better to continue work until the "fine tuning stage", when the game was feature complete.
Everyone knows that when a product is in beta stage that it is in an unfinished form, but as many have pointed out , by the time the product is in beta most systems are more or less "set in stone". See anything odd there? How does an NDA make your life as a gamer better? It doesnt, the exact opposite is true, it gives a company that created a product that they are almost sure will be poorly received a chance to trick people into buying it. Vanguard anyone? Dark and Light?
NDAs are bad for you as a gamer and as a consumer. They are being used not to protect a product but to keep consumers in the dark about a product. I say that if a game maker wants to use US, the public as beta tester, free labor then we have the right as a communtiy to discuss that product.
Is that so unreasonable? Disclosure? Games and MMOs in particular are relient on willing complicity of its consumer base, on the self same consumers to actually pony up and provide actual work in the completion of thier for profit venture.
Who else in business does that? No one, why do we accept that? Then willingly hold back information from the very group that we actually are a part of?
-Gooney
Please don't mistake my disagreement with your concept for misunderstanding it -- it's simply arrogant and off-putting. We're not talking rocket science here but when the NDA drops, if the game still sucks, people will know about it because beta testers will talk about it. Furthermore, typically open beta kicks in afterwards and then everyone gets to see first hand and judge for themselves if a game is good (not to overlook the fact that at even larger pool of consumers now can talk about it.) I don't know about Dark and Light but people were avidly complaining about VG not being done after the NDA dropped and before it was released.
If you knew anything about software coding and testing, you would know how difficult it can be to release something perfectly correct on the first shot. The company has to repeatedly test the software somehow and internal testers can only test so much without sequestering more people to help. NDA provides cover so that a reasonably sized group can go through the game, pick off bugs and typos as well as review gameplay balance which will all surely yield quite a few changes--the company doesn't have to declare any of that information and it shouldn't matter so long as it is cleared up before going go-live. Complaints about an alpha/beta build can be needlessly damaging and the developer does deserve some protection for their investment (especially considering how people react to varying degrees of speculation.)
And what's with this tangent about "I say that if a game maker wants to use US, the public as beta tester, free labor then we have the right as a communtiy to discuss that product."? Beta testers do have a forum to discuss that product as they're the ones involved in the transaction (free sneak peek and playtime for reporting bugs). How does a private transaction amongst a small sampling of individuals confer community rights?
When you write, I don't read consumer protection in your words--it really sounds like you're talking sour grapes here even though you proclaim to avoid betas now.
Man please, just stop with the jabs, its obvious that your an intelligent human, I still don't think you get what I mean. Its aggrevatingly obvious when you take the last jab about sour grapes.
I have stated multiple times why I believe NDA's are bad. You've stated they are good, but you have not explained why they are good for ME the gamer. I get the feeling that your just arguing for arguments sake, thats ok I guess, it gives me an outlet too.
ASSUME that I am an IT professional, and have worked my entire working life in the design, development, testing, release and support of software products. ASSUME that I am under so many NDA's the I simply can not even discuss any active projects.
Now imagine what possible reason I would have to be against NDA's.
1. Im just mad because I cant get or share info about a game I want to know about. (This is wrong, I applied for 1 beta in the last 5 years)
2. I feel that NDAs are being abused by companies to take advantage of overzealous fans (True)
3. I feel that Beta Tests are conducted under the cover of NDAs to lure fanboys to even greater levels of hysteria; guaranteed hype, earned or not. (True)
4. Im just taking a piss, because Im bored at work. (False, Im writing this at home)
5. Im concerned with the direction of this industry, Ive seen how different creative media have been plowed under, repackaged, and regurgitated. (True)
6. NDAs are corporate thumbscrews on an industry that was created by gamers for gamers, but has been assimilated in many many ways. (True)
I will readily admit that I drug in my personal dislike of Beta testing, not because I have any particular axe to grind. I do however believe that anyone contributing their own time and energy to a product should be compensated for it. I believe that this whole industry and MMO's in particular take advantage of the good will and excitement of players for their own benefit. Its a real Ike Turner relationship between the company and beta testers, and gamers do it willingly and whats more will defend obvious shite because they have invested so much of thier souls in it.
Games are a creative media that evokes many emotions, christ its like crackdealers offering free test samples to junkies just to make sure the batch wont kill their real good customers. They dont care about the junkies they will buy regardless of quality... they are after all junkies.
-Gooney
NDA's are designed to protect and cater to the company, and I do not think it is beneficial to the consumer in any way.
As most of these companies are "in it for the money" I am quite sure they have weighed the pros and cons carefully.
Besides, I have been in quite a few betas, and a couple of alphas and at least when it comes to betas they rarely listen to the players in any case, if they had the whole world to listen to would not matter, deaf is deaf, regardless of the sound level.
I just think it is a "required" piece of paper, lawyers and publishers and venture capitalists and other investors probably demands it.
That is the way of the bussiness world I gather.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jerek_
I wonder if you honestly even believe what you type, or if you live in a made up world of facts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Think about what not having an NDA would force a game company to do. Probably make them ensure their product was tight before they showed anyone. Isnt that a logical conclusion to derive?
Everyone with an objection seems to believe that the NDA protects the developer from bad press in the event that thier game is crap. As a gamer, I take exception to that, as should any of you.
Alternatvily, NDA prevents people talking about features that simply arent done, they worry that a game would be ridiculed for not being feature complete, the game would in effect recieve an unfair evaluation. In that case a company would be daft to show it to people, it would be better to continue work until the "fine tuning stage", when the game was feature complete.
Everyone knows that when a product is in beta stage that it is in an unfinished form, but as many have pointed out , by the time the product is in beta most systems are more or less "set in stone". See anything odd there? How does an NDA make your life as a gamer better? It doesnt, the exact opposite is true, it gives a company that created a product that they are almost sure will be poorly received a chance to trick people into buying it. Vanguard anyone? Dark and Light?
NDAs are bad for you as a gamer and as a consumer. They are being used not to protect a product but to keep consumers in the dark about a product. I say that if a game maker wants to use US, the public as beta tester, free labor then we have the right as a communtiy to discuss that product.
Is that so unreasonable? Disclosure? Games and MMOs in particular are relient on willing complicity of its consumer base, on the self same consumers to actually pony up and provide actual work in the completion of thier for profit venture.
Who else in business does that? No one, why do we accept that? Then willingly hold back information from the very group that we actually are a part of?
-Gooney
Please don't mistake my disagreement with your concept for misunderstanding it -- it's simply arrogant and off-putting. We're not talking rocket science here but when the NDA drops, if the game still sucks, people will know about it because beta testers will talk about it. Furthermore, typically open beta kicks in afterwards and then everyone gets to see first hand and judge for themselves if a game is good (not to overlook the fact that at even larger pool of consumers now can talk about it.) I don't know about Dark and Light but people were avidly complaining about VG not being done after the NDA dropped and before it was released.
If you knew anything about software coding and testing, you would know how difficult it can be to release something perfectly correct on the first shot. The company has to repeatedly test the software somehow and internal testers can only test so much without sequestering more people to help. NDA provides cover so that a reasonably sized group can go through the game, pick off bugs and typos as well as review gameplay balance which will all surely yield quite a few changes--the company doesn't have to declare any of that information and it shouldn't matter so long as it is cleared up before going go-live. Complaints about an alpha/beta build can be needlessly damaging and the developer does deserve some protection for their investment (especially considering how people react to varying degrees of speculation.)
And what's with this tangent about "I say that if a game maker wants to use US, the public as beta tester, free labor then we have the right as a communtiy to discuss that product."? Beta testers do have a forum to discuss that product as they're the ones involved in the transaction (free sneak peek and playtime for reporting bugs). How does a private transaction amongst a small sampling of individuals confer community rights?
When you write, I don't read consumer protection in your words--it really sounds like you're talking sour grapes here even though you proclaim to avoid betas now.
Man please, just stop with the jabs, its obvious that your an intelligent human, I still don't think you get what I mean. Its aggrevatingly obvious when you take the last jab about sour grapes.
I have stated multiple times why I believe NDA's are bad. You've stated they are good, but you have not explained why they are good for ME the gamer. I get the feeling that your just arguing for arguments sake, thats ok I guess, it gives me an outlet too.
ASSUME that I am an IT professional, and have worked my entire working life in the design, development, testing, release and support of software products. ASSUME that I am under so many NDA's the I simply can not even discuss any active projects.
Now imagine what possible reason I would have to be against NDA's.
1. Im just mad because I cant get or share info about a game I want to know about. (This is wrong, I applied for 1 beta in the last 5 years)
2. I feel that NDAs are being abused by companies to take advantage of overzealous fans (True)
3. I feel that Beta Tests are conducted under the cover of NDAs to lure fanboys to even greater levels of hysteria; guaranteed hype, earned or not. (True)
4. Im just taking a piss, because Im bored at work. (False, Im writing this at home)
5. Im concerned with the direction of this industry, Ive seen how different creative media have been plowed under, repackaged, and regurgitated. (True)
6. NDAs are corporate thumbscrews on an industry that was created by gamers for gamers, but has been assimilated in many many ways. (True)
I will readily admit that I drug in my personal dislike of Beta testing, not because I have any particular axe to grind. I do however believe that anyone contributing their own time and energy to a product should be compensated for it. I believe that this whole industry and MMO's in particular take advantage of the good will and excitement of players for their own benefit. Its a real Ike Turner relationship between the company and beta testers, and gamers do it willingly and whats more will defend obvious shite because they have invested so much of thier souls in it.
Games are a creative media that evokes many emotions, christ its like crackdealers offering free test samples to junkies just to make sure the batch wont kill their real good customers. They dont care about the junkies they will buy regardless of quality... they are after all junkies.
-Gooney
Firstly, my responses aren't meant to be jabs--I'm just conveying back to you what your prior posts sounded like. Ignore them for a few days and then try re-reading them.
Apologies aside, I think elvenangel eloquently summed up how NDAs benefit the consumer as protecting other gamers from the unnecessary bad press vis a vis protecting the developer's investment from the oft-mentioned unnecessary bad press that could circulate from alpha/early beta testing.
Regarding points 2 and 3, I feel that NDAs play no part in fanboism -- that's simply a minority of immature hobbyists whose speculation and attachment has run amok. I don't think you can attribute the craziness of the Vanguard vanboi's to NDAs, with or without it. As far as 5 goes, I also disagree with that citing my reasons in post 28. If you want to see something different in the industry, vote with your wallet or else build it yourself because consumers aren't going to change Richard Garriot's or Raph Kosters vision for a particular game when it is in development. As for 6, I see it as.....fact without relevance, it's necessary protection for a multi-million dollar investment.
But ask yourself, is everything a developer does supposed to benefit the gamer? Isn't it possible they do things strictly to further their own selfish needs/wants? Sometimes gamers receive unintended benefits as a result of a dev's actions, but it doesn't mean it was intentional or even desired by the company.
Games are made for one reason, to make money, plain and simple. Pleasing customers is only a secondary concern the companies are forced to do because we won't buy them if they don't at least try. (well, actually, sometimes we buy them anyways, even when they completely miss the mark in terms of what we gamers want)
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
NDA's are not meant for you, the gamer. They are intended to help protect the company, its IP rights and any unique feature implementations from being stolen and used by another company that has the financial backing to be able to develop it faster. There is also a degree of protection of privacy.
It's like coming up with a better version of the wheel - there is no way are you going to allow other people to utilize your idea's and work before you can profit from it yourselves.
That's what NDA's are primarily for. They don't offer anything for the gamer, nor are they supposed to. What you DO get from beta testing is a chance to sneak peak a game and evaluate it for yourself before it goes live, and maybe even have some of your feedback and idea's used to improve the end product, but that is nothing to do with the NDA.
-Draf.
DarkSpace Developer - Play DarkSpace - Play For Free!
Medusa Engine SDK - Free MMO Game Engine
Hampton Roads/East Coast Video Gamers Association
So it has nothing at all to do with people ripping their ideas off. It's all about hype and them controlling how their game is released.
It has absoloutely nothing to do with them not making new things, every game beta has NDA because they are letting you play the game before others. They don't want you to ruin the lore they are releasing, or post your opinions about the game to others who haven't had the chance to play it and put light on the game in a negative way just because it isn't to your taste.
I really laughed at your post about secrecy, it's just so you don't ruin the launch of the game with " this is crap, I hate it, look at this video or this screenshot...It's broken etc etc." If they didn't have NDA people would play a beta and just trash it for having bugs etc and people would take that opinion and not play the game.
Also, if they have new ideas...Most of the time they will build up hype about them, put alot of emphasis on them before launch, show videos of this particular feature being used in a good way. They don't want a 12 year old who lied about his age in the beta making a video of a small bug in the otherwise perfect new feature and complaining because he can't get it to work.
They want people to actually try the game themselves and if they are giving you the privilage to test the game before millions of other potential players you should do it on their terms, they choose to have it so you can't tell all your friends how things work etc or let them play your account.
EDIT: Missed out the most important reason for NDA.
They let press into test the game and tell them what they can and can't write about for a review. Undercover press could enter, without NDA, record videos etc and release all the features, bugs etc and totally ruin the launch of the game.
I think of games like Christmas. When you was a kid and woke up on Christmas morning, if you knew everything about every present you had, it would totally ruin it. Think of the new big MMORPG release like that, without NDA people would ruin it for you by divulging information you may not want to hear.
NDAs are very stupid. Especially since you can make a very generic post (like, "It's the same old crap we're used to with a couple superficial features. In return there's a lot of bugs and the idea of balance is something as faint as a fleeting dream") and it would apply to practically every MMO in beta out there. What can they do? Sue you for violating an NDA? For someone that never agreed to one?
Even if a company does anything special is what sells MMOs is not innovation, but craftsmanship. WoW was the most polished MMO at release and one that had a strong IP behind it. Gameplay wise it's nothing spectacular, but it looked great, ran great, and let everyone romp around in a world they had already played in before. Consumers care more about craftsmanship than features, and that is not something an NDA is going to make or break.