It is refreshingly simple. The game warns you that it is not to be discussed publicly and why. If you discuss it publicly, or write and publish an article about it (kek), you get banned from current and future participation. Open and shut.
The cat is out of the bag so there's no real reason for Valve to hold you under a legal threat. They're confident that news won't really hurt them, and participation would be desirable. So they invite you quietly, and allow you to invite your friends. And when you break the arrangement they just ban you.
I have to admire the elegance.
But what kind of nutcase are you to literally put the disclaimer of "Don't share any details about this game with anyone" that the game shows you on every launch IN YOUR ARTICLE, and then glibly assert "But I didn't press OK, I pressed Escape, ha HA!" You want to live in a society where nobody trusts anybody, and this is the attitude that makes it so.
"I would like to enter your theme park."
"Okay, sign here."
"No."
"Understandable, come right in."
The only thing that contradicts that is some kind of "well everyone knows not agreeing to a EULA actually means agreeing" logic. Let me ask you this then: when presented with that UI, how do you refuse that agreement and close the game? Or is every possible action agreeing to their contract?
It's clear and obvious what is meant. You can argue semantics if you want.
Valve wasn't taking the guy to court though. They just banned him. Which they are allowed to do for any reason.
Alternatively, I'm not sure I can conceptualize the legal state of declining to fulfill a requirement for entry, and then... being faced with the consequence of... not being allowed entry somehow being the fault of the person setting the requirements.
but I'm sure any programmer worth their salt will back me up in that even Valve can't produce anything that would remotely wow people anymore.
That’s an absurd statement. You have no idea what the game plays like. It could be crap, but it could also be great. If you were saying “X company used to be great, but their recent products have been bad, so I don’t have faith in this,” that would be one thing, but you say “even Valve,” so it sounds like you think Valve is still great, but making something that wows people is just fundamentally impossible.
There is no need to be so secretive, the only reason they do any of this crap is as a marketing ploy and honestly just from the screenshots the game looks thoroughly unremarkable.
Maybe they want to get feedback on an early design without being committed to that design by hype? Maybe they’re concerned about someone making a shovelware clone and beating them to market?
If I see a studio announce a game that's going to be release within a year and refuse to show anything beyond a teaser trailer, I'm assuming it's shit and they're hiding behind marketing hype.
No idea where you’re getting this from. It has no official release date. It’s an early build. Hence that NDA. If you’re just “chatting generally” about hypotheticals, it shouldn’t have any bearing on this particular case.
The most Valve managed to do with their programming tech with CS:2 was the interactive smoke and in reality they were just a bunch of destructible textured cubes floating in the air to make the simulation a bit more believable. I saw a programmer in Godot quickly replicate it no problem so it's not as if they were that amazing.
I don’t know why you’re conflating “code complexity” with “fun mechanics.” Many people enjoy and play CS2. Is there some reason that the smoke was a particularly poor implementation of what they were trying to do? Perhaps you should explain that instead.
I'm not that lacking in self-awareness
You got sick of people pointing out your lack of self-awareness and annoying habits, so you started saying “I’m self-aware” without changing any of the stuff that made people say you weren’t self-aware. Hilarious.
it's because when you read code on a daily basis you've seen it all and this is why even when it comes to old studios who have a pedigree I'm thoroughly unimpressed by what they put out considering these are companies with billions in profits.
You talk like an intermediate that thinks he's a principal.
I know I come across as majorly cocky sometimes, I'm not that lacking in self-awareness
Friendly suggestion: after you finish a post, re-read it and find any bits where you talk about yourself and simply delete those paragraphs.
Yes, sometimes personal experience is relevant to a post. But no, your programming experience or British citizenship is not relevant to every post. You'd be better erring on the side of caution and your posts will be better if you just leave it out.
People will play this game because it's Valve, just like people will play GTA because it's Rockstar, but overall I suspect the reception will be extremely meh.
You never hear about it anymore. So no people will not play a game just cause of its dev name, although it will lead to a surge of initial players if they screw it, it will die.
Ex valve devs have commented on code maintainability and workplace mismanagement. Still, I wouldn't denigrate the technical prowess put into a successful twitch shooter sequel on a custom engine (or if they went the UE/Godot route) as beneath a moderate sized triple-a team. Did the Godot hobbyist come up with a superior smoke implementation? I have my own complaints outside the core gameplay, about the hidden away server browser and retarded official matchmaking systems, so I'm not giving Gaben special treatment, and have held my negative csgo review since trying cs2.
Triple-A gaming is far from the most secretive industry. Think of the secrecy measures put into a federal contractor like Palantir. Or even hardware companies like Micron or AMD. Would be an unnecessarily costly burden that constrains creative output.
but I'm sure any programmer worth their salt will back me up in that even Valve can't produce anything that would remotely wow people anymore
I would probably fall under that, but I would also disagree. Cause things that "wow" people are not things that a programmer does. It's what a designer does.
What wows a programmer is stuff like the magic number for fast inverse square root. But for a player that is irrelevant.
Stuff like the physic puzzles in HL2 are trivial and were trivial. We had physic simulation for ages and they're easy to implement. But putting them into a shooter? That was the wow factor.
I mean your CS2 example is great. Did the Godot programmer's version run at 240fps next to all the other code of CS2? Cause that was a requirement, cause CS nerds value their 240hz monitors. Not to mention they don't want any changes to the gameplay.
Sorry, I know you’re trying to be nice, but his example with CS2 was the worst part. He didn’t say anything about whether it worked well. You’re extrapolating that because you assume it wasn’t a retarded example. His actual complaint was that it wasn’t complicated or fancy. I even asked him to clarify if there was anything bad about it, because the complaint didn’t appear to make sense, and his response was:
I never claimed it was a poor implementation, I simply pointed out it was nothing special
In other words, it worked fine, it did what the game needed, but because it wasn’t done in a fancy new way that Valve invented themselves, it’s bad.
It is still for sale on GoG, you can buy both entries today if you like.
I suspect they are actually in the clear because neither game is just Deadlock. The first one is actually "Deadlock: Planetary Conquest" and the second is "Deadlock 2: Shrine Wars"
They were both enjoyable too, if the art doesn't completely turn you off and you enjoy turn based strategy games they are worth playing.
That's probably it. The name is not Deadlock. The name "Deadlock: Planetary Conquest"
Those CGI diplomatic animations were always the fucking bomb. It's a fucking tragedy nobody adds that aesthetic into most modern games. You just have a full motion advisor giving you updates, as well as enemy factions communicating with you in the same way.
I’ve always sort of sarcastically called the original Overwatch “Team Fortress 3”. Which is now gone in its original form. We absolutely do need more of these types of games, because the current crop is woke and lame.
Overwatch is my favorite bad game, and I played it up until the Hong Kong bullshit and haven't participated with anything blizzard since so I'm excited as well, especially since the Toad's philosophy is anti everything I disliked about overwatch
This brought me so much joy. But it's a great immediate lesson on what entitled children these retards are.
As I say, Journalists are the bottom of the piss barrel of professions (the list of piss professions is long and includes cops, nurses, actors, journalists, and some others) and you don't usually get to see it so clearly and easily laid out in real time.
It's okay to talk about the game with your buddies. And also okay to show them screen/vids.
It's not okay that you as a journo should write articles about it. Wait until it's okay for that to happen.
Of course you can also write about the game if something happens during development like a scandal that is cool to know about. But "Look guys, I'm in the alpha/beta/xxx, teehee" is not it.
>It's okay to talk about the game with your buddies
Unless valve unilaterally decides otherwise. The sign says "do not share anything about the game with anyone". You own nothing and you sound pretty happy.
Kool, it's just a thing you're forced to comply with or they ban you from the service. Call it whatever you want. It's an adhesion contract limiting your freedom of speech.
If any other company did this, everyone would rightfully excoriate them. I guess ethics only apply to your enemies.
It is refreshingly simple. The game warns you that it is not to be discussed publicly and why. If you discuss it publicly, or write and publish an article about it (kek), you get banned from current and future participation. Open and shut.
The cat is out of the bag so there's no real reason for Valve to hold you under a legal threat. They're confident that news won't really hurt them, and participation would be desirable. So they invite you quietly, and allow you to invite your friends. And when you break the arrangement they just ban you.
I have to admire the elegance.
But what kind of nutcase are you to literally put the disclaimer of "Don't share any details about this game with anyone" that the game shows you on every launch IN YOUR ARTICLE, and then glibly assert "But I didn't press OK, I pressed Escape, ha HA!" You want to live in a society where nobody trusts anybody, and this is the attitude that makes it so.
He is a loose cannon who does not play by the rules! Or sign NDAs! Or accept EULAs!
That's some Kosher Oven logic.
Not really.
"I would like to enter your theme park."
"Okay, sign here."
"No."
"Understandable, come right in."
The only thing that contradicts that is some kind of "well everyone knows not agreeing to a EULA actually means agreeing" logic. Let me ask you this then: when presented with that UI, how do you refuse that agreement and close the game? Or is every possible action agreeing to their contract?
It's clear and obvious what is meant. You can argue semantics if you want.
Valve wasn't taking the guy to court though. They just banned him. Which they are allowed to do for any reason.
That's sort of how contracts work in the first place. But you're also right about the ban.
Alt tab right click close?
Alternatively, I'm not sure I can conceptualize the legal state of declining to fulfill a requirement for entry, and then... being faced with the consequence of... not being allowed entry somehow being the fault of the person setting the requirements.
What's the tort violation otherwise?
That’s an absurd statement. You have no idea what the game plays like. It could be crap, but it could also be great. If you were saying “X company used to be great, but their recent products have been bad, so I don’t have faith in this,” that would be one thing, but you say “even Valve,” so it sounds like you think Valve is still great, but making something that wows people is just fundamentally impossible.
Maybe they want to get feedback on an early design without being committed to that design by hype? Maybe they’re concerned about someone making a shovelware clone and beating them to market?
No idea where you’re getting this from. It has no official release date. It’s an early build. Hence that NDA. If you’re just “chatting generally” about hypotheticals, it shouldn’t have any bearing on this particular case.
I don’t know why you’re conflating “code complexity” with “fun mechanics.” Many people enjoy and play CS2. Is there some reason that the smoke was a particularly poor implementation of what they were trying to do? Perhaps you should explain that instead.
You got sick of people pointing out your lack of self-awareness and annoying habits, so you started saying “I’m self-aware” without changing any of the stuff that made people say you weren’t self-aware. Hilarious.
You talk like an intermediate that thinks he's a principal.
Tim Cain certainly was not thinking of Valve when he made that statement about workplace mediocrity.
Friendly suggestion: after you finish a post, re-read it and find any bits where you talk about yourself and simply delete those paragraphs.
Yes, sometimes personal experience is relevant to a post. But no, your programming experience or British citizenship is not relevant to every post. You'd be better erring on the side of caution and your posts will be better if you just leave it out.
Might I interest you in a game called Artifact.
You never hear about it anymore. So no people will not play a game just cause of its dev name, although it will lead to a surge of initial players if they screw it, it will die.
Ex valve devs have commented on code maintainability and workplace mismanagement. Still, I wouldn't denigrate the technical prowess put into a successful twitch shooter sequel on a custom engine (or if they went the UE/Godot route) as beneath a moderate sized triple-a team. Did the Godot hobbyist come up with a superior smoke implementation? I have my own complaints outside the core gameplay, about the hidden away server browser and retarded official matchmaking systems, so I'm not giving Gaben special treatment, and have held my negative csgo review since trying cs2.
Triple-A gaming is far from the most secretive industry. Think of the secrecy measures put into a federal contractor like Palantir. Or even hardware companies like Micron or AMD. Would be an unnecessarily costly burden that constrains creative output.
Dota has been getting updates, substantial massive tons of content updates for 20 years, and its still around 65 G. I trust this one
I would probably fall under that, but I would also disagree. Cause things that "wow" people are not things that a programmer does. It's what a designer does.
What wows a programmer is stuff like the magic number for fast inverse square root. But for a player that is irrelevant.
Stuff like the physic puzzles in HL2 are trivial and were trivial. We had physic simulation for ages and they're easy to implement. But putting them into a shooter? That was the wow factor.
I mean your CS2 example is great. Did the Godot programmer's version run at 240fps next to all the other code of CS2? Cause that was a requirement, cause CS nerds value their 240hz monitors. Not to mention they don't want any changes to the gameplay.
Sorry, I know you’re trying to be nice, but his example with CS2 was the worst part. He didn’t say anything about whether it worked well. You’re extrapolating that because you assume it wasn’t a retarded example. His actual complaint was that it wasn’t complicated or fancy. I even asked him to clarify if there was anything bad about it, because the complaint didn’t appear to make sense, and his response was:
In other words, it worked fine, it did what the game needed, but because it wasn’t done in a fancy new way that Valve invented themselves, it’s bad.
And again, I’m asking you to explain why it is a problem that the code is “average” if it works the way it needs to.
Please explain why the wheel needs to be reinvented when the current implementation of it accomplishes the design goal.
Hey wait...
Deadlock is a game that already exists... Is the old Deadlock franchise considered Abandonware?
I was going to mention that. This new one certainly doesn't look like the old one.
I guess that one is old enough to lose it's copyright for the name. Which technically makes it abandonware.
It is still for sale on GoG, you can buy both entries today if you like.
I suspect they are actually in the clear because neither game is just Deadlock. The first one is actually "Deadlock: Planetary Conquest" and the second is "Deadlock 2: Shrine Wars"
They were both enjoyable too, if the art doesn't completely turn you off and you enjoy turn based strategy games they are worth playing.
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
That's probably it. The name is not Deadlock. The name "Deadlock: Planetary Conquest"
Those CGI diplomatic animations were always the fucking bomb. It's a fucking tragedy nobody adds that aesthetic into most modern games. You just have a full motion advisor giving you updates, as well as enemy factions communicating with you in the same way.
The old franchise was amazing.
Only If you Vote for Gabe As President!, Do your duty!
I’ve always sort of sarcastically called the original Overwatch “Team Fortress 3”. Which is now gone in its original form. We absolutely do need more of these types of games, because the current crop is woke and lame.
Hopefully this one ends up good.
Overwatch is my favorite bad game, and I played it up until the Hong Kong bullshit and haven't participated with anything blizzard since so I'm excited as well, especially since the Toad's philosophy is anti everything I disliked about overwatch
There isn't one. The character design is solid having played it now.
This brought me so much joy. But it's a great immediate lesson on what entitled children these retards are.
As I say, Journalists are the bottom of the piss barrel of professions (the list of piss professions is long and includes cops, nurses, actors, journalists, and some others) and you don't usually get to see it so clearly and easily laid out in real time.
I'm really looking forward to playing this game. Sounds awesome
>Oppressive adhesion contracts and gag orders are ok when valve does it
This board, I swear.
It's okay to talk about the game with your buddies. And also okay to show them screen/vids.
It's not okay that you as a journo should write articles about it. Wait until it's okay for that to happen.
Of course you can also write about the game if something happens during development like a scandal that is cool to know about. But "Look guys, I'm in the alpha/beta/xxx, teehee" is not it.
>It's okay to talk about the game with your buddies
Unless valve unilaterally decides otherwise. The sign says "do not share anything about the game with anyone". You own nothing and you sound pretty happy.
It's not a contract you monkey.
Kool, it's just a thing you're forced to comply with or they ban you from the service. Call it whatever you want. It's an adhesion contract limiting your freedom of speech.
If any other company did this, everyone would rightfully excoriate them. I guess ethics only apply to your enemies.
Do you understand the difference between not allowing pre-launch reviews for a game that can be pre-ordered and one that is FTP?
Second paragraph. Fucking lol. Unironically yes they do. Ethics are like locks, for friends and neighbors.
"You're such a hypocrite. Youre only shooting people in the other army!"