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.
Edit: didn’t even require agreement, so honestly it’s kinda fair game. I was a bit hostile calling it shitty, I felt like it was a loophole or something but it’s more Valve just saying “hey pls don’t” and the verge replying “no thanks”, and eating the game ban since that’s all valve can really do.
This isn’t some grand conspiracy it’s a closed beta for a video game. It’s pretty normal to have an NDA or embargo agreement to get access. It sounds like valve just goofed the implementation. So yeah it’s totally legal for them to post it, valve just might avoid giving them early copies in the future.
Polygon is Vox’s gaming site and I imagine the shitlist will extend to all Vox properties. So the editors at Polygon now have another department to blame for their woes.
There is no NDA for Deadlock, and anyone in it can invite anyone they want, as often as they want. It’s not like Valve has no idea how to privately test their game. I think they made these decisions deliberately.
A bit of the eula says not to share info about the game, but you can literally back out without accepting the eula, and still play. So I don’t know if I’d call it intentional, but there’s definitely no legal reason they can’t post whatever they want. They just got banned for it and might have damaged their relationship with valve somewhat. Depends on how much valve cares tho.
Edit: it wasnt even a eula apparently, just a “pls dont tell people ok?” Pop up. Thanks to the folks clarifying <3
Don’t know why you’re getting crushed for this. It’s not even just about this particular game; one of the major players in the largest entertainment industry on the planet is doing something highly unusual. That’s in the public interest.
Lemmy users should know better, too, as The Verge was one of the leading reporting outlets on what happened on Reddit last year. Adversarial tech journalism is part of what they do.
Yeah that’s a fair point. I was mistaken thinking it was an actual eula they bypassed because valve didn’t make it so you couldn’t just close it, but it’s not in any way legally enforceable. I thought at least it was one of those grey “technically correct but obviously an unintended loophole” kind of things, but they literally just said “pls don’t tell”. I’m mostly thinking that risking the connections you might have to valve aren’t worth a scoop on a game still in what seems to be alpha or closed beta, but if I were valve I really don’t think they can be that mad, everything the verge did was basically fair game if they were fine with a game ban.
I guess when I think of public interest I think of stuff like reddit selling user data without consent, or games using manipulative tactics. It’s hard to feel like it makes sense to be aggressive with something as benign as “game we don’t know much about yet, smells of dota/moba” But then again I’m not a game journalist, and I stand corrected.
There isn’t even an informal agreement. It simply says not to share anything. Not even “by playing this, you agree not to share anything”. It’s just “please don’t share anything” without any action required by your side.
Yeah, gaylord_fartmaster let me know. I thought the message was one of those “scroll down and click agree on this eula” things but its just a pop up box, so it’s def not enforceable.
Nobody is saying it’s enforceable. It’s just a shitty thing to do when someone shows you something in confidence, asks not to share it, and you publish an entire news article about it. It’s just a dick move. Obviously nothing illegal about it.
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.
Edit: didn’t even require agreement, so honestly it’s kinda fair game. I was a bit hostile calling it shitty, I felt like it was a loophole or something but it’s more Valve just saying “hey pls don’t” and the verge replying “no thanks”, and eating the game ban since that’s all valve can really do.
If 10,000 people are doing something, it is NOT secret, and journalists must report on it for the general benefit of society.
Valve has their head in the clouds if they thought they could keep an informal secret among the population of a small town.
This isn’t some grand conspiracy it’s a closed beta for a video game. It’s pretty normal to have an NDA or embargo agreement to get access. It sounds like valve just goofed the implementation. So yeah it’s totally legal for them to post it, valve just might avoid giving them early copies in the future.
Totally. Verge just lost their access to breaking gaming news. They’ll be blacklisted from now on.
That said, I don’t know anyone who goes to The Verge for breaking news on gaming.
Polygon is Vox’s gaming site and I imagine the shitlist will extend to all Vox properties. So the editors at Polygon now have another department to blame for their woes.
There is no NDA for Deadlock, and anyone in it can invite anyone they want, as often as they want. It’s not like Valve has no idea how to privately test their game. I think they made these decisions deliberately.
A bit of the eula says not to share info about the game, but you can literally back out without accepting the eula, and still play. So I don’t know if I’d call it intentional, but there’s definitely no legal reason they can’t post whatever they want. They just got banned for it and might have damaged their relationship with valve somewhat. Depends on how much valve cares tho.
Edit: it wasnt even a eula apparently, just a “pls dont tell people ok?” Pop up. Thanks to the folks clarifying <3
There’s no EULA just like there’s no NDA. That pop up and a one sentence post about not sharing info about the game on the forum is all there is.
Oh ok, I must’ve misread the article, thanks for clarifying :)
There was no NDA, and the EULA is skippable.
Don’t know why you’re getting crushed for this. It’s not even just about this particular game; one of the major players in the largest entertainment industry on the planet is doing something highly unusual. That’s in the public interest.
Lemmy users should know better, too, as The Verge was one of the leading reporting outlets on what happened on Reddit last year. Adversarial tech journalism is part of what they do.
Adversarial journalism is always spun as “journalism out of line” when this is the foundation of all journalism.
Yeah that’s a fair point. I was mistaken thinking it was an actual eula they bypassed because valve didn’t make it so you couldn’t just close it, but it’s not in any way legally enforceable. I thought at least it was one of those grey “technically correct but obviously an unintended loophole” kind of things, but they literally just said “pls don’t tell”. I’m mostly thinking that risking the connections you might have to valve aren’t worth a scoop on a game still in what seems to be alpha or closed beta, but if I were valve I really don’t think they can be that mad, everything the verge did was basically fair game if they were fine with a game ban.
I guess when I think of public interest I think of stuff like reddit selling user data without consent, or games using manipulative tactics. It’s hard to feel like it makes sense to be aggressive with something as benign as “game we don’t know much about yet, smells of dota/moba” But then again I’m not a game journalist, and I stand corrected.
There isn’t even an informal agreement. It simply says not to share anything. Not even “by playing this, you agree not to share anything”. It’s just “please don’t share anything” without any action required by your side.
Yeah, gaylord_fartmaster let me know. I thought the message was one of those “scroll down and click agree on this eula” things but its just a pop up box, so it’s def not enforceable.
Nobody is saying it’s enforceable. It’s just a shitty thing to do when someone shows you something in confidence, asks not to share it, and you publish an entire news article about it. It’s just a dick move. Obviously nothing illegal about it.