What was so secret about it?
this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2024
66 points (95.8% liked)
Games
32643 readers
1454 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
So apparently they had a bit asking players to not share info about the game, but you could technically back out of it without agreeing so legally they can post whatever they want. It feels like a case of "this is legal to do but maybe kinda shitty and valve might be upset". Basically the agreement was informal and not enforceable and the verge just said fuck it. They did get banned afterwards, but I think that and not working with them in the future is all valve can do.
Why wouldn’t they just put journalists they gave access to under embargo?
It's not clear if he actually got access from Valve or from a friend or someone else. The article simply states
Earlier today, I received a no-strings-attached invite to play Deadlock on Steam.
Ok - but they all originate from Valve, right? They couldn’t just put it behind a paywall or “NDA”wall?
From my understanding users of the beta can then invite others to join as well, Valve isn't necessarily directly choosing who has access. So if Valve didn't send the invite themselves they wouldn't know to specifically put someone under a more strict NDA or whatnot because they're a journalist. Could they have done more to restrict all users from sharing information? Yes, since apparently you just have to hit escape to bypass the agreement pop up, and there's no other sort of NDA or contract or w/e in place upon joining.
I'm just speculating, but I think they chose not to do that so people could openly get their friends playing with them instead of going through waves of sign ups and hoping to get in together, or otherwise risk people losing interest when they can only play with randos. I could also see a line of thinking where you assume people want to talk about the game, so let them bring others in to play with them and that gives them someone to talk to about it too instead of just spilling the beans for randos on the internet.
That’s all I’m saying. Valve is the gatekeeper and left the gate wide open. They blew it and they’re looking for someone else to blame.
Valve fucked up but the Verge still broke the social contract regardless of whether they're legally in the clear or not.
Doing something just because "it's legal" doesn't make it a moral justification. My wife and I have a joint bank account. It is legal for me to take money from it and gamble it all away, the gate is "open" but that doesn't make it morally justifiable.
Meh, I don't think there's anything morally wrong with what he did. What he did wasn't just legal, it's literally his job. The only issue is that Valve is now angry at him for their own failing.
To continue the same analogy, they didn't just leave the gate open, they literally invited a bunch of people and told them to invite other people. I'm not sure what they expected if not this exact situation.
I can’t believe their secret game they gave to 10 thousand people got leaked
Valve gives you access to a game and tells you not to spew your mouth off. A gentleman's agreement if you will.
You spew your mouth off and valve takes access away.
shocked pikachu face
This is a non-issue of you ask me. A person, who happens to be a writer, got access to the game through a steam friend and was asked not to talk about it but thought they could just not agree to a warning and write about it anyway? I got access too and i didnt write about the game. I get to go back and play it today, they cant.