Your game isn't actually ready for alpha
Make people sign an NDA to playtest it, don't release a "public closed beta" contingent on this non disparagement agreement bullshit

Most people (except for you, apparently) can see right through this kind of thing. The only reason you'd make someone sign a legally binding document saying "you're not allowed to say bad things" is because you know there are bad things to say. If there are bad things to say and you know about them, the correct move (from both a technical and PR perspective) is to fix the bad things before allowing your game to be played publicly. Preventing people from talking about the bad things won't magically get rid of the bad things.

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee -2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Your game isn’t actually ready for alpha

Alpha testing is, by definition, testing on unreleased code. Even though they are offering the testing to some select group of people, it's still considered un-released.

The only reason you’d make someone sign a legally binding document saying “you’re not allowed to say bad things” is because you know there are bad things to say.

False dichotomy. There is also the possibility that you realize, from experience, that when you start introducing users, unexpected shit happens.

They could do the alpha testing completely internally, or they could give some super fans pre-access with more restrictions on what they are allowed to say. Would I prefer they be able to speak their mind? Of course. But I get why the company would do this and it's really a complete non-issue.

Sure, they could do an NDA, or they could also get free publicity. It's reasonable for them to choose the latter, and if you don't like it, it's reasonable for you to wait for release.

Preventing people from talking about the bad things won’t magically get rid of the bad things.

Yeah, that's pretty clearly not the point. They presumably want to fix the bugs without them counting against them in the court of public opinion.

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Alpha testing is, by definition, testing on unreleased code. Even though they are offering the testing to some select group of people, it’s still considered un-released.

I go out of my way to explain how alphas are typically done as a games industry professional, and you're still out here spewing the same nonsense? get outta here. This is not a defensible action by a corporation. When a game reaches alpha, the whole of the game is unready but the part used in the public playtests are extensively reviewed by QA and gets as polished as possible. When a game is at alpha stage, it's by definition gone through multiple release candidates.

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee -2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Are you arguing that alpha testing is not considered in house testing? It's literally the definition.

The alpha phase of the release life cycle is the first phase of software testing (alpha is the first letter of the Greek alphabet, used as the number 1). In this phase, developers generally test the software using white-box techniques. Additional validation is then performed using black-box or gray-box techniques, by another testing team. Moving to black-box testing inside the organization is known as alpha release.[1][2]

Alpha software is not thoroughly tested by the developer before it is released to customers. Alpha software may contain serious errors, and any resulting instability could cause crashes or data loss.[3] Alpha software may not contain all of the features that are planned for the final version.[4] In general, external availability of alpha software is uncommon for proprietary software, while open source software often has publicly available alpha versions. The alpha phase usually ends with a feature freeze, indicating that no more features will be added to the software. At this time, the software is said to be feature-complete. A beta test is carried out following acceptance testing at the supplier's site (the alpha test) and immediately before the general release of the software as a product.[5]Wikipedia link

I'm sure parts of the game are well polished. I'm sure some only release a small part of the game for advertising reasons. They are doing something different here maybe. I don't really know. But this is such a non-issue that the outrage over it is laughable. Not surprising, at all, however, considering I've been a gamer all my life and I know how unreasonable we can be.

[–] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

False dichotomy. There is also the possibility that you realize, from experience, that when you start introducing users, unexpected shit happens.

If you're not willing to let the unexpected shit be public, don't do a public alpha test. That's the point everyone here is trying to make. Like, what are these streamers and content creators supposed to do when they run into a game-breaking bug, or they run into some mechanic they really dislike? Ignore it and hope no one notices, for fear of saying something "disparaging" about the game? Do you not see how unreasonable that is? We all understand that alphas are incomplete and will have bugs, and unexpected shit will happen. We all also have different opinions about what we like in video games. Them trying to hide from that, rather than just being upfront about it (like every other alpha or early access game I've ever played) is asinine.

They could do the alpha testing completely internally

They should do the alpha testing internally, if they're not willing to have their product be honestly reviewed, or pay to have their product advertised.

But I get why the company would do this and it’s really a complete non-issue.

Considering that this thread exists, Seagull's original tweet got the immense attention it did, and the studio announced hours ago that the particular clause everyone (except you) is taking issue with was a mistake that they're looking into fixing, uh, maybe it actually isn't just a "non-issue"?

Sure, they could do an NDA, or they could also get free publicity. It’s reasonable for them to choose the latter, and if you don’t like it, it’s reasonable for you to wait for release.

No, actually, I don't think it's reasonable to expect "free publicity" on the condition that the ones providing that publicity muzzle themselves if they don't like the game. That's exploitative behavior by this studio. Expecting free anything and then attaching unreasonable legal stipulations that you know the other party cannot fight is unethical.

Yeah, that’s pretty clearly not the point. They presumably want to fix the bugs without them counting against them in the court of public opinion.

They want to control the narrative around their unfinished video game, by trying to legally bully content creators, who have way less legal and financial leverage, into doing their bidding. That is unethical. Full stop, no I will not be taking any more questions.