It’s a funny thing what game publishers sometimes try to do when it comes to releasing games early to internet streamers as a way to boost interest in their games. I’ve heard stories of…

It’s a funny thing what game publishers sometimes try to do when it comes to releasing games early to internet streamers as a way to boost interest in their games. I’ve heard stories of all kinds of crazy stipulations that streamers have to sign off on contractually in order to get access to the game. They can only show certain parts of the game, or they can only play so far into it, or they have guardrails put up around what they can and cannot say about the game they are showing off to the public. What tends to get lost in all of this is that these streamers are essentially an advertising channel to generate more hype about these future games, yet they’re treated like some kind of a threat.

  • LvxferreEnglish
    8·
    7 months ago

    In a follow-up posted to social media this morning, NetEase went on to “apologize for any unpleasant experiences or doubts caused by the miscommunication of these terms…

    Ooh, corporate gaslighting! “Your fee fees are hurt because you didn’t actually understand the message correctly!”

    There is no miscommunication here. The message is clear as day - “don’t criticise our product”.

    We actively encourage Creators to share their honest thoughts, suggestions, and criticisms as they play. All feedback, positive and negative, ultimately helps us craft the best experience for ourselves and the players.”

    Given the content of the clause, NetEase is simply being liars…

    NetEase says it is making “adjustments” to the contract “to be less restrictive and more Creator-friendly.”

    …and they’re fully aware that everybody knows that they being liars, otherwise they wouldn’t be trying to make the clause less unpalatable.

    My sides went into orbit.