297
submitted 4 months ago by ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net to c/games@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] edgemaster72@lemmy.world 33 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

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.

[-] ccunning@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

Ok - but they all originate from Valve, right? They couldn’t just put it behind a paywall or “NDA”wall?

[-] edgemaster72@lemmy.world 15 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

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.

[-] ccunning@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago

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.

[-] phdepressed@sh.itjust.works 20 points 4 months ago

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.

[-] moody@lemmings.world 9 points 4 months ago

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.

[-] dormedas@lemmy.dormedas.com 10 points 4 months ago

Valve isn't really angry as far as I can tell, or have heard. They're about as angry as any other person which goes and posts this stuff online: revoking access. If Valve wanted to expand their testing userbase without people leaking it online, they would have sought NDAs and other legally-binding agreements with testers and - by extension - journalists who can test the game.

this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2024
297 points (100.0% liked)

Games

32953 readers
1160 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:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS