Beta Question

[Spook]

Phase 2 testers leaking stuff they will NOT like.

If I'm not mistaken, Phase 2 testers will be held legally accountable for their actions. As said, they will have to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements. Break that agreement by leaking anything forbidden by the Agreement, and you'll find yourself in court.

[Superpig]

I'm going to field a bet that Phase 1 testers will be signing NDAs as well (even if IV have not said so yet). If it were me, that's how I'd be doing it. Always better to play it safe than sorry - before you know it the beta's leaked onto the web and has become the 'Official Demo.' The number of people I've heard saying that they're not going to buy Doom ]I[ after being "disappointed with the alpha..."

In any case, it's marketing. If they want to have any kind of coherent strategy, they've got to keep control over it. So they want to eliminate (or at least, be able to sue) all their "x-factors."

They'll want to be very careful that screenshots show off the game in its best light, which is why they'll want to handle taking them themselves (and not have Joe Betatester do it).

The NDAs I've signed in the past have basically said, "You're only allowed to talk about what we've already officially released." So, any info that's on the Darwinia website, along with the stuff from PC Gamer, would be fair conversation. Everything else would be secret and don't-tell. Saying that you're a beta tester wouldn' t be against such an agreement, but then again, would you want to - knowing that everyone will then pester you for more info, info which you can't give them without breaking the NDA? Probably easier for everyone if the testers keep it low-key and don't go around parading that they got into the programme.

[Darksun]

The phase 1 beta is very limited. Only one level, and that incomplete. I'm also guessing a lot of the gameplay features have been removed. So a NDA for phase 1 testers probably isn't nessecary, at least not a legally signed one.

[Superpig]

The phase 1 beta is very limited. Only one level, and that incomplete.

True. But people have managed to hack apart things like Doom's MD4 format and write import/export tools for them. How long do you think it would take them to rip apart Darwinia?

I'm also guessing a lot of the gameplay features have been removed.

If they remove the gameplay features, we can't test them

So a NDA for phase 1 testers probably isn't nessecary, at least not a legally signed one.

Whatever. I maintain that they're being dangerously foolish if they don't have one. Disagree with me if you wish.

[jim_the_coder]

Chris, just please don't let yourself get hacked. Most people should know about the HL2 disaster...

http://news.com.com/2100-7349-5087698.html

[Stewsburntmonkey]

I highly doubt IV has anything so advanced that people would get much benefit from stealing it. IV has always been about concept not technology/programming. It is the game play that is the center of the game not the graphics engine or any other peice of code.

[da_zeg]

It's sad that the "Public" don't know what an alpha is. And take is as written that all the bugs, general slowness and non-existent gameplay will be present in the final version. Most alphas never see the light of day outside of the Dev-teams office. (Late alphas are sometimes given to external testers) although this would actually make them Betas.

Even in demo versions of games it usually says something like.
"This is a project in development, content may not reflect that of the final release".

Ahhh. The public, so fickle

[elDiablo]

Actually, by defination, alpha's shouldnt be seen outside of the Development Studios. Alpha's are designed to be "in-house" workings that the team use for testing.

And how is this thread showing the "public" are fickle? And the fact that we are not really the "public". Most people here have been following IV for a while, bar a few new people (which is good), but most of them seem to understand the development cycle of a game...

The "public" mostly think games cause people to be voilent.

[hamster]

The "public" mostly think games cause people to be voilent.

Well, it gives them an excuse I suppose. We wouldn't want to try and make them accountable for their own actions.

[da_zeg]

I do Know the definition of alpha\betas that is why I said:

although this would actually make them Betas.

Some versions are released as betas with the title alpha.

As for the "public being fickle" It is not a hint that anyone is not intelligent.
Most people are intelligent. Just that as a whole the "public" is less than the sum of it's parts.

[piratebob]

What're you talking about games making people violent. Psssh, so what if I carry around a big sword, laser rifle, sub-machine gun, and a missile launcher, I'm just prepared.

[da_zeg]

I don't believe in all that "Games make people Violent" s**t that old womens' groups keep coming out with.

There is no game realistic enough for a start, we simply do not have the processing power to simulate enough aspects of real life at once. Such as the pseudo random split second live or die decisions people make.

I think that the real issure here is mental illness (PC term?)

For hundredes of years people have commited crimes due to "voices in their heads"

Self censorship does work, If you found a game too violent (if possible) you would cease to play it. OK protect the children but aren't we supposed to be grown up