We played Valve's new shooter, Deadlock(theverge.com)
theverge.com
We played Valve's new shooter, Deadlock
https://www.theverge.com/2024/8/12/24219016/valve-deadlock-hands-on-secret-new-game
36 comments
This article is receiving a massive amount of silly backlash by gamers on social media as "The Verge are assholes by breaking the agreement!" but a) Valve is a big enough company to be able to require and enforce binding NDAs and they chose not to in this instance, and a popular new game by Valve is properly newsworthy to report upon and b) most don't realize that the and "Valve banned me" update is tongue-in-cheek and not the author being genuinely upset.
I'm sympathetic to Valve, considering their history. If you didn't know, during the development of HL2 a very unfinished build of the game was leaked. It was a PR nightmare for them, and they had to crunch extremely hard to finish the game.
Of course, they're not the scrappy company they were in 2003.
Of course, they're not the scrappy company they were in 2003.
They also let everyone who wants in into this beta. I have access, and everyone I click invite on does within 12 hours or so. The game peaked at 27k users yesterday. It's not exactly a secret, the game isn't in such early stages that there isn't a marketing component to this beta.
https://steamdb.info/app/1422450/charts/
https://steamdb.info/app/1422450/charts/
They are even scrappier today than in 2003 despite making more money than ever. I think tf2 is down to one maintainer and hackers have them by the you know what.
> a popular new game by Valve is properly newsworthy to report upon
If you've been explicitly asked to not report on a thing, and then you do. That's a jerk move. There shouldn't have to be legal incentive to do the right thing.
> a big enough company to be able to require and enforce binding NDAs and they chose not to in this instance
Valve isn't Nintendo. Their goal isn't to lawsuit their fans into submission. The splash screen saying "Don't share stuff" that the Verge clicked "OK" on is not necessarily a legally binding NDA, but it was clear what was being asked, and the Verge broke that contract (even if it was just a social contract). And Valve enforced the contract by banning them. No legal repercussions, just "you didn't hold up your end of the deal, so we're removing you from the deal" (and now Valve knows for the future that the Verge and this author in particular are the type to not follow simple instructions).
Access to the game is pretty readily available. If you want in, you can get in. People playing have to agree to the "Don't share stuff, this is just alpha" screen, and they know they are playing alpha software. People reading (or more likely, skimming) an article, don't have to agree to "I realize this isn't final software." So while nothing is so secret that it needs legal enforcement, different circumstances of how you discover something may affect your view on it.
If you've been explicitly asked to not report on a thing, and then you do. That's a jerk move. There shouldn't have to be legal incentive to do the right thing.
> a big enough company to be able to require and enforce binding NDAs and they chose not to in this instance
Valve isn't Nintendo. Their goal isn't to lawsuit their fans into submission. The splash screen saying "Don't share stuff" that the Verge clicked "OK" on is not necessarily a legally binding NDA, but it was clear what was being asked, and the Verge broke that contract (even if it was just a social contract). And Valve enforced the contract by banning them. No legal repercussions, just "you didn't hold up your end of the deal, so we're removing you from the deal" (and now Valve knows for the future that the Verge and this author in particular are the type to not follow simple instructions).
Access to the game is pretty readily available. If you want in, you can get in. People playing have to agree to the "Don't share stuff, this is just alpha" screen, and they know they are playing alpha software. People reading (or more likely, skimming) an article, don't have to agree to "I realize this isn't final software." So while nothing is so secret that it needs legal enforcement, different circumstances of how you discover something may affect your view on it.
> If you've been explicitly asked to not report on a thing, and then you do. That's a jerk move. There shouldn't have to be legal incentive to do the right thing.
NDAs are the way companies ask a reporter not to report on a thing. It's a valid agreement between two parties. The jerk move is expecting people to adhere to your version of what "the right thing" is. Not everybody shares your opinion on the matter, hence the existence of NDAs.
NDAs are the way companies ask a reporter not to report on a thing. It's a valid agreement between two parties. The jerk move is expecting people to adhere to your version of what "the right thing" is. Not everybody shares your opinion on the matter, hence the existence of NDAs.
NDAs are the way companies DEMAND a reporter not to report on a thing. Again, Valve is not trying to turn this into a legal mess. There were no repercussions to the Verge other than losing access to the beta. I don't think that companies being rigid soulless entities is a good thing. If this is the kind of thing that makes Valve go "I guess we need to invite fewer people and make everyone sign an NDA" then the world is robbed of just a bit of fun. And that makes the Verge's actions a jerk move at an even deeper level.
The actual prompt that shows up when you launch the game says:
> Early Development Build > Deadlock is still early in development, with a lot of temporary art and experimental gameplay. Do not share anything about the game with anyone. > [ OK ]
They make it pretty clear what they want in exchange for playing the game.
> Expecting people to adhere to your version of what the right thing is.
You think that asking people to do something as a human, instead of sterilizing the interaction and bringing lawyers into it... that's the jerk move.
There isn't much wiggle room on what is right here. If the Verge didn't want to adhere to the agreement, they could have just closed the game. So they agreed to not share the information, and then did anyway. That's dishonest, and a jerk move. They weren't being dishonest to expose a larger crime (this wasn't whistleblowing), they were just dishonest for their own benefit.
I would hope you're not the type of person who shares other people's secrets, because you're not legally obligated to since you never signed an NDA.
The actual prompt that shows up when you launch the game says:
> Early Development Build > Deadlock is still early in development, with a lot of temporary art and experimental gameplay. Do not share anything about the game with anyone. > [ OK ]
They make it pretty clear what they want in exchange for playing the game.
> Expecting people to adhere to your version of what the right thing is.
You think that asking people to do something as a human, instead of sterilizing the interaction and bringing lawyers into it... that's the jerk move.
There isn't much wiggle room on what is right here. If the Verge didn't want to adhere to the agreement, they could have just closed the game. So they agreed to not share the information, and then did anyway. That's dishonest, and a jerk move. They weren't being dishonest to expose a larger crime (this wasn't whistleblowing), they were just dishonest for their own benefit.
I would hope you're not the type of person who shares other people's secrets, because you're not legally obligated to since you never signed an NDA.
a) they can but didn't. This is why we can't have nice things. This industry is so utterly NDA heavy that you'd think we were doing government contracts, but articles like this are why they do this. We saw how gamers reacted to a pre-alpha build of GTA6. This can and does hurt studio's PR.
b1) BOTD is usually granted, but The Verge has a horrible history with meltdowns. So I'm skeptical. http://web.archive.org/web/20161013131227/http://nextshark.c...
b2) If it's tongue-in-cheek that may in fact be even worse. They don't even care that they broke a verbal agreement. That's worse than at least trying to own up and say they just wanted easy clicks.
This was all in bad taste to begin with. They better not complain if Valve blacklists them.
b1) BOTD is usually granted, but The Verge has a horrible history with meltdowns. So I'm skeptical. http://web.archive.org/web/20161013131227/http://nextshark.c...
b2) If it's tongue-in-cheek that may in fact be even worse. They don't even care that they broke a verbal agreement. That's worse than at least trying to own up and say they just wanted easy clicks.
This was all in bad taste to begin with. They better not complain if Valve blacklists them.
> This is why we can't have nice things.
That's one interpretation. Another interpretation is that Valve has been around more than long enough to see how these things go. What makes you think they didn't want it to leak to generate buzz? The lack of any sort of controls around their new game suggests this might have been part of their marketing strategy.
That's one interpretation. Another interpretation is that Valve has been around more than long enough to see how these things go. What makes you think they didn't want it to leak to generate buzz? The lack of any sort of controls around their new game suggests this might have been part of their marketing strategy.
>Another interpretation is that Valve has been around more than long enough to see how these things go
Yes, hence "we can't have nice things". You think other devs aren't looking at this and thinking "well this is why we lock it down with NDAs
>What makes you think they didn't want it to leak to generate buzz?
The fact that I do in fact work in industry. It happens but Valve doesn't really advertise in the traditional sense. Let alone in the" dark secrets " way.
Reality is not only disappointing, but boring. It takes time and money to prepare ndas and enforce them and for Valve the cost of that is less bad than leaks (or "leaks"). Valve games aren't cheap, but approaches like this when you're not relying on $10m advertising schemes keep development for their AAA productions surprisingly low. There's your boring reality.
Yes, hence "we can't have nice things". You think other devs aren't looking at this and thinking "well this is why we lock it down with NDAs
>What makes you think they didn't want it to leak to generate buzz?
The fact that I do in fact work in industry. It happens but Valve doesn't really advertise in the traditional sense. Let alone in the" dark secrets " way.
Reality is not only disappointing, but boring. It takes time and money to prepare ndas and enforce them and for Valve the cost of that is less bad than leaks (or "leaks"). Valve games aren't cheap, but approaches like this when you're not relying on $10m advertising schemes keep development for their AAA productions surprisingly low. There's your boring reality.
You missed the point of my previous comment, so I'll be more explicit and blunt: if Valve doesn't care enough to prepare an NDA, why do you care? Why is it making everybody so mad? This is what Valve chose and they knew damned well what would happen. Not "could", but "would." I worked in gaming, too, once upon a time. These things are predictable.
>You missed the point of my previous comment, so I'll be more explicit and blunt: if Valve doesn't care enough to prepare an NDA, why do you care? W
Because as you missed: I work in the industry.
I signed at least TWENTY NDAs for jobs I'd never hear back from after that recruiter call this year alone. I'd say 70%.of them didn't even tell anything NDA anyway. Because those employees don't want to risk their NDAs. Some are startups and there's not really anything to talk about, but gotta sign it anyway. I barely talk about western games because I could randomly slip some random irrelevant detail for an announced game and be in hot water. You like signing a bunch of gag orders just to be quizzed on random leet ode questions? I don't.
Games are so dang opaque with some of the coolest tech in industry because some Japanese executives from the 80s were afraid of secrets leaking or competitionor something. There were chances of open source gaming creeping up in the 90's with Quake's engine, but consoles really took off (and perhaps PCs became too expensive for a while) and it locked things down even harder. You can barely even say you have dev kits for released consoles.
So yes, it does anger me and affect my personal mission as someone trying to break that mentality. I'm working on a game with as many open source tooling as possible, open source engine, all the code available to view and modify, etc. and I want to actually help others make good games. Hard to do that when every line of code is apparently million dollar trade secrets.
The worst part is the lack of care or at least illusion of care. People make mistakes, I don't hold that against those willing to course correct later. This author just goes tongue and cheek and complains why their industry isn't as respected as proper journalism.
Hope that answeres your question.
Because as you missed: I work in the industry.
I signed at least TWENTY NDAs for jobs I'd never hear back from after that recruiter call this year alone. I'd say 70%.of them didn't even tell anything NDA anyway. Because those employees don't want to risk their NDAs. Some are startups and there's not really anything to talk about, but gotta sign it anyway. I barely talk about western games because I could randomly slip some random irrelevant detail for an announced game and be in hot water. You like signing a bunch of gag orders just to be quizzed on random leet ode questions? I don't.
Games are so dang opaque with some of the coolest tech in industry because some Japanese executives from the 80s were afraid of secrets leaking or competitionor something. There were chances of open source gaming creeping up in the 90's with Quake's engine, but consoles really took off (and perhaps PCs became too expensive for a while) and it locked things down even harder. You can barely even say you have dev kits for released consoles.
So yes, it does anger me and affect my personal mission as someone trying to break that mentality. I'm working on a game with as many open source tooling as possible, open source engine, all the code available to view and modify, etc. and I want to actually help others make good games. Hard to do that when every line of code is apparently million dollar trade secrets.
The worst part is the lack of care or at least illusion of care. People make mistakes, I don't hold that against those willing to course correct later. This author just goes tongue and cheek and complains why their industry isn't as respected as proper journalism.
Hope that answeres your question.
To be fair they invited a huge number of people (I got it randomly without requesting) so if they were really interested in keeping it under wraps they did a terrible job.
I agree probably they really are not expecting any secrecy with game where getting early access is simply clicking a button.
On other hand after everything gaming media has done over the years against gamers. Attacking them when there is any opportunity is somewhat fun...
On other hand after everything gaming media has done over the years against gamers. Attacking them when there is any opportunity is somewhat fun...
Woof - that is a LOT of drama.
Thank you for the update, I'd have no idea what was unfolding without it!
Thank you for the update, I'd have no idea what was unfolding without it!
what did you hope with this comment in emulating their silliness?
Because there’s a nonzero chance that someone here will make a similar silly argument.
Alright I will do it because I don't like seeing needless toxicity at the first comment on a thread. I wasn't even aware of this drama until I read your comment.
Valve is a weird company, and gamers can be weird people. DotA had a culture where doxxing icefrog is really looked down upon. Valve games tend to have these sorts of cultures and quirks.
Needless to say, valve created a relatively accessible way to play their game under development. Most companies don't do this. All Valve requested was to not publicize the game. If you are a gaming journalist, and you break this sort of online etiquette, which is very well established thing for Valve, then you get to be called out for being a dick.
> they chose not to in this instance
because as you said it is kinda silly and the game is an open secret. Doing this is not part of their culture, but the openness accessibility of their betas is.
> a popular new game by Valve is properly newsworthy to report upon
sure, verge has good traffic reasons to do this. gamers also have a reason to criticize this because they want to keep the way Valve does things. It is very unique.
> most don't realize that the and "Valve banned me" update is tongue-in-cheek and not the author being genuinely upset
What makes you say this? I think most people are just using this line to mock the author because they are angry nerds lol. Doesn't really matter what the intent of the author was.
So much of online gaming culture would be understood with just this line:
"If you don't wanna get flamed, don't break the ritual"
This article elucidates the point: https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2024/08/13/the-verge-...
Valve is a weird company, and gamers can be weird people. DotA had a culture where doxxing icefrog is really looked down upon. Valve games tend to have these sorts of cultures and quirks.
Needless to say, valve created a relatively accessible way to play their game under development. Most companies don't do this. All Valve requested was to not publicize the game. If you are a gaming journalist, and you break this sort of online etiquette, which is very well established thing for Valve, then you get to be called out for being a dick.
> they chose not to in this instance
because as you said it is kinda silly and the game is an open secret. Doing this is not part of their culture, but the openness accessibility of their betas is.
> a popular new game by Valve is properly newsworthy to report upon
sure, verge has good traffic reasons to do this. gamers also have a reason to criticize this because they want to keep the way Valve does things. It is very unique.
> most don't realize that the and "Valve banned me" update is tongue-in-cheek and not the author being genuinely upset
What makes you say this? I think most people are just using this line to mock the author because they are angry nerds lol. Doesn't really matter what the intent of the author was.
So much of online gaming culture would be understood with just this line:
"If you don't wanna get flamed, don't break the ritual"
This article elucidates the point: https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2024/08/13/the-verge-...
I'm not even that familiar with Valve culture and this sums it all up to me.
>If you are a gaming journalist, and you break this sort of online etiquette, which is very well established thing for Valve, then you get to be called out for being a dick.
Then they wonder why they are mocked as not being real journalists. Can you imagine trying to have a source confide in your but then have that confidentiality removed because "well you didn't say I couldn't show your face. I didn't name you". It's disgusting.
>If you are a gaming journalist, and you break this sort of online etiquette, which is very well established thing for Valve, then you get to be called out for being a dick.
Then they wonder why they are mocked as not being real journalists. Can you imagine trying to have a source confide in your but then have that confidentiality removed because "well you didn't say I couldn't show your face. I didn't name you". It's disgusting.
I feel for journalists. They face a tough market. And everyone hates the "news." At the same time, Valve is clearly doing a unique thing that their fans appreciate, and it seems the community was mostly in agreement in not leaking footage (besides the typical youtube streamers, which the community is not linking on the internet in places like twitter or reddit). Why go into a community, mostly in agreement with valve, and just break the honor rule of "don't leak the content of the game".
If we are ok with breaking honor rules in otherwise healthy communities because there is no legal risk, then why are we not OK with people voicing that it was a dick move?
Btw, I don't play deadlock. Will probably never play it because I had enough of games like TF2 or overwatch. I just don't get why people are so comfortable with being jerks lol. Especially as the first comment on this post, commenting on the drama and insinuating that gamers are being childish (they are usually) on this matter is kinda silly.
If we are ok with breaking honor rules in otherwise healthy communities because there is no legal risk, then why are we not OK with people voicing that it was a dick move?
Btw, I don't play deadlock. Will probably never play it because I had enough of games like TF2 or overwatch. I just don't get why people are so comfortable with being jerks lol. Especially as the first comment on this post, commenting on the drama and insinuating that gamers are being childish (they are usually) on this matter is kinda silly.
Sounds kind of similar to Uber Entertainment's long ago Monday Night Combat. Not really my cup of tea but the gameplay mechanics were interesting.
Great, another online only game.
This game only makes sense as "online only" since its pvp. Do you just want it not to exist?
It’s been 13 years since Valve made a non-pvp, non-vr game. I don’t fault people liking those kinds of games. However I don’t think it’s out of line to hope Valve’s next game could be enjoyed by people without the inclination to play online or needing to own special hardware.
Valve hasn't been a "console company" for 13 years. If they aren't making NFT-adjacent MOBA's/Hero Shooters they are making tech demos for their hardware.
it's sad as a huge Portal fan, but at this point Valve's been a platform holder longer than they have been a "console games" studio. The only stipulation is that they are free enough with their work that you have a 1% chance of turning your own Portal/half-Life Mod into a sanctioned release if you impress them enough.
I'd say "be the change you want to be", but I think the worst use of your talent is investing in an IP you do not own/have a license for. Every Garry's Mod has hundreds of broken dreams underneath. And I especially hate this line, but: If you're gonna mod you need to do it as a hobby. Because monetizing it is the easiest way to get on 99% of companies' radar.
it's sad as a huge Portal fan, but at this point Valve's been a platform holder longer than they have been a "console games" studio. The only stipulation is that they are free enough with their work that you have a 1% chance of turning your own Portal/half-Life Mod into a sanctioned release if you impress them enough.
I'd say "be the change you want to be", but I think the worst use of your talent is investing in an IP you do not own/have a license for. Every Garry's Mod has hundreds of broken dreams underneath. And I especially hate this line, but: If you're gonna mod you need to do it as a hobby. Because monetizing it is the easiest way to get on 99% of companies' radar.
I’m not even asking for a console game. Single player PC game is perfectly fine, thanks.
I could have specificed better, but I used "console-style" to descibe a catch all of "90's/00's style games that would launch on console/PC pre-networked age". Thought it was be less confusing and pompous to say that than "Actual PC games"
Then again, I could have just said offline games, and maybe I was overthinking it.
Then again, I could have just said offline games, and maybe I was overthinking it.
Network effect is hard. I can make a single player game and get one sale, or a multiplayer game and guarantee two, in addition to getting free word-of-mouth advertising (friends convincing friends to buy the game so they can play).
I am not sure if relevant, but I think there might also be a legal risk if Valve goes harder on games. Valve not contributing meaningfully to "first party" games makes them less susceptible.
I think the issue might be the loss of pvp games that you used to be able to play against bots?
Like dota 1, you could always play offline 5v5 as the only human among bots.
Oh i guess there was also LAN in wciii tft.
Like dota 1, you could always play offline 5v5 as the only human among bots.
Oh i guess there was also LAN in wciii tft.
You can play new games with bots as well afaik
There are so many good single player games these days though (not by Valve, sadly).
If you liked Portal, give the Talos Principle 1 and 2 a try.
If you like story driven shooters, try Horizons, Control, Atomic Heart, Titanfall, Doom Eternal, the System Shock remake, Metro, Wolfenstein, Dishonored, Prey. There are more good ones from last decade too (FEAR, Rainbow Six, etc.). None of them are really Half Life replacements, but they're good.
Or if you don't mind open world, RDR2, Cyberpunk, etc.
Not to mention the dozens of amazing single player indie games (not shooters) that have sprung up on Steam over the past two decades.
Valve seems to have given up on single-player games, but their marketplace allowed the industry to really blossom into the huge thing it is today.
If you liked Portal, give the Talos Principle 1 and 2 a try.
If you like story driven shooters, try Horizons, Control, Atomic Heart, Titanfall, Doom Eternal, the System Shock remake, Metro, Wolfenstein, Dishonored, Prey. There are more good ones from last decade too (FEAR, Rainbow Six, etc.). None of them are really Half Life replacements, but they're good.
Or if you don't mind open world, RDR2, Cyberpunk, etc.
Not to mention the dozens of amazing single player indie games (not shooters) that have sprung up on Steam over the past two decades.
Valve seems to have given up on single-player games, but their marketplace allowed the industry to really blossom into the huge thing it is today.
[deleted]