Jump to content

MP preview and new screens.


Recommended Posts

Uhm, what the heck?

Is it just me, or did WP just break the terms of agreement for the beta? :o

I believe it did and until I hear otherwise from Ubisoft, the link is removed from the original post.

[venting]Why do people insist on ruining the opportunities given to the community? :wall: [/venting]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uhm, what the heck?

Is it just me, or did WP just break the terms of agreement for the beta? :o

I believe it did and until I hear otherwise from Ubisoft, the link is removed from the original post.

[venting]Why do people insist on ruining the opportunities given to the community? :wall: [/venting]

I aggree i was really thrilled to be given the oppurtunity to beta test this, normally i probably wouldn't of had a chance too, but people giving out links against the NDA could stop future beta testing for people like me. Nice going.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know ZJJ, but those screens looked legit from a legit site :hmm: is something from another website construed as a violation of the NDA? :hmm:

They played the same beta as you Papa, and therefore are subject to the same NDA as you - i.e. no public posting of any information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know ZJJ, but those screens looked legit from a legit site :hmm: is something from another website construed as a violation of the NDA? :hmm:

They played the same beta as you Papa, and therefore are subject to the same NDA as you - i.e. no public posting of any information.

However, the screenshots and review link are posted on the UBI forums...

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/2...13/m/6081062555

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know ZJJ, but those screens looked legit from a legit site :hmm: is something from another website construed as a violation of the NDA? :hmm:

They played the same beta as you Papa, and therefore are subject to the same NDA as you - i.e. no public posting of any information.

plz don't misunderstand me Rocky It looked like an authorized release. i guess our friend above found it on the official ubi forums. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I aggree i was really thrilled to be given the oppurtunity to beta test this, normally i probably wouldn't of had a chance too, but people giving out links against the NDA could stop future beta testing for people like me. Nice going.

Don't worry too much Stelath. although I am adamantly against violating NDAs, the reality is that as long as games continue to be around and get more and more complex, so will be public beta's. All the professional QA in the world cannot replace the value to developers for a non-professional public beta test. The free work from the community who actually intend to buy the game and love the Genre brings out points, bugs and ideas simply often missed in the laboratory of a professional QA environment. And the risk to the project of an NDA violation (albeit illegal and unethical) is realtively low when public beta's are embarked upon this close to the actual release date.

So although I don't recommend violating NDAs, I wouldn't lose too much sleep over other people's occasional indiscretions. Your chance to be involved in the next great shooter's beta test is not reduced one iota by this one guys bad act.

Edited by Sleepdoc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As it turns out, some game sites do have permission to post media from the beta. Not us lowly No.1 fan site though, we are prohibited. A bit rough considering we've provided the only working forum for beta bug feedback, and bailed them out when their bug reporting tool failed. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As it turns out, some game sites do have permission to post media from the beta. Not us lowly No.1 fan site though, we are prohibited. A bit rough considering we've provided the only working forum for beta bug feedback, and bailed them out when their bug reporting tool failed. :(

I'll try to put this into perspective for ya rocky if I may be so bold.

Despite the truth that you are the # 1 fan site, fan sites are singularly focused. It is in Ubisoft's best interest to give the "exclusives" to web sites that promote ALL their games across ALL genres. Their bottom line is less affected by fan sites of one game and much more affected by sites with wide area traffic across all their titles.

Lest we forget that businesses are in business to profit the most with the least amount of risk and effort.

But of course, it would be nice if businesses were sometimes a bit more humanistic and allowed their fans to share in the spoils more......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here the link.

N-joy. :)

Graphics are very nice!

Have a question about the placement of the sight.

Look at the pictures where the sight is shown for a weapon.

Does it look like its in the right place?

Now use a ruler and see if the sight really follows the line of sight (barrel axis) from the weapon.

It looks a little off to the left and down to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As it turns out, some game sites do have permission to post media from the beta. Not us lowly No.1 fan site though, we are prohibited. A bit rough considering we've provided the only working forum for beta bug feedback, and bailed them out when their bug reporting tool failed. :(

Well I think it is unfortunate and indicative of deeper problems/issues at Ubi that this is the case, but so be it. The mere fact that they "required" any help with their own bet test itself indicates problems. I think this just continues to point to a large number of disconnects between the marketing, production, and development teams at Ubi.

As for this particular "issue", I do not think there is really much info in the article. However I do hope that everyone learns to "take a chill pill" on enforcing other people's non-disclosure agreements. Personally, I find the "rush to judgment" and censoring of peoples posts quite inappropriate. I very much a strong proponent of people living up to the agreements they entered into, but I VERY MUCH OBJECT when people start ranting that others have broken an agreement when in fact they are not aware of or party to the agreement in question.

This happened back with the "3rd GRAW" beta (for which many/most participants were not under an NDA), yet their conversations an observations were removed from public view simply because someone asserted that they must be breaking an NDA by posting -- and one particular conversation remains locked away still today despite it containing some very good discussion that may well have helped people (and developers) understand more about the desires of the community :(

Oh well, this particular thread is not that "deep", but none the less it seems that the same sort of "rush to judgment" almost happened here again. I find that a bit disheartening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but none the less it seems that the same sort of "rush to judgment" almost happened here again. I find that a bit disheartening.

As shown, we are not permitted here to reveal any info from the Beta, so I had to check that the posted info was not breaking any agreement, once I had checked that the release was in fact permitted then the link was replaced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite the truth that you are the # 1 fan site, fan sites are singularly focused. It is in Ubisoft's best interest to give the "exclusives" to web sites that promote ALL their games across ALL genres. Their bottom line is less affected by fan sites of one game and much more affected by sites with wide area traffic across all their titles.

Yeh, I am aware of that, I've had to put up with it for 5 years :) Doesn't make it any easier to swallow though. Fan site / publisher relationships is a whole new discussion though. How about a fan site that actually runs the official forums... seen that before? Like I said, that's another discussion :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the intentions were well meant from Rocky's point of view.

@ Rocky, I think we can safely say for future reference, if someone posts a website that officially claims to have official information that it doesn't reflect bad on your site. Rather it can help UBISOFT view and control who's reviewing what and go after them. we can't really be held responsible if one of us comes across this sort of information. this isn't a breach of an NDA as we ourselves aren't revealing anything, thereby we aren't in violation of said NDA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite the truth that you are the # 1 fan site, fan sites are singularly focused. It is in Ubisoft's best interest to give the "exclusives" to web sites that promote ALL their games across ALL genres. Their bottom line is less affected by fan sites of one game and much more affected by sites with wide area traffic across all their titles.

Yeh, I am aware of that, I've had to put up with it for 5 years :) Doesn't make it any easier to swallow though. Fan site / publisher relationships is a whole new discussion though. How about a fan site that actually runs the official forums... seen that before? Like I said, that's another discussion :thumbsup:

*cough* Crytek *cough*

dev/publishers should be just as loyal to their fans as their fans are to them. My opinion of course. I feel your pain though Rocky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the intentions were well meant from Rocky's point of view.

@ Rocky, I think we can safely say for future reference, if someone posts a website that officially claims to have official information that it doesn't reflect bad on your site. Rather it can help UBISOFT view and control who's reviewing what and go after them. we can't really be held responsible if one of us comes across this sort of information. this isn't a breach of an NDA as we ourselves aren't revealing anything, thereby we aren't in violation of said NDA.

rather they say it's official or not, (the poster) until we get the ubisoft/Grin ok... we have to remove them. It's like warez. If someone posts a downloadable warez and says ubisoft said it was a free download... do we keep it up until we check it? no. Remove, check, verify, then put back if official. It's all part of being closely tied. If we violated the NDA, Grin may not be able to post here to help us out as they have in the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the intentions were well meant from Rocky's point of view.

@ Rocky, I think we can safely say for future reference, if someone posts a website that officially claims to have official information that it doesn't reflect bad on your site. Rather it can help UBISOFT view and control who's reviewing what and go after them. we can't really be held responsible if one of us comes across this sort of information. this isn't a breach of an NDA as we ourselves aren't revealing anything, thereby we aren't in violation of said NDA.

rather they say it's official or not, (the poster) until we get the ubisoft/Grin ok... we have to remove them. It's like warez. If someone posts a downloadable warez and says ubisoft said it was a free download... do we keep it up until we check it? no. Remove, check, verify, then put back if official. It's all part of being closely tied. If we violated the NDA, Grin may not be able to post here to help us out as they have in the past.

True but you're using some pretty clear and cut differences there ROCO.

Warez is easy to clearly to see as a violation or a no-no :nono:

But a review. think about it for a moment. IF they have a copy of the Beta, and indepth information on GRAW2 you and I don't have, I'd be pretty sure that it's legit unless the entity in question stole the information. but as we found out, it was posted in the ubiforums as mentioned here earlier in this thread. how could they look for the information and game specs in the game design and more without being told by the source (UBISOFT)?

added: If a user like myself were to blatantly post info on the beta, then I can see people screaming foul play. but a website that's not clear cut and dry, we needn't get hasty and all gestapo around here. :yes:

Edited by Papa6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There isn't a need to argue the actions I took when removing the link. There is a lot of behind the scenes knowledge that isn't known by many. Based on what I knew, I had to remove the link and get it verified. Come to find out the website did indeed have permission, but not for everything that was said....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There isn't a need to argue the actions I took when removing the link. There is a lot of behind the scenes knowledge that isn't known by many. Based on what I knew, I had to remove the link and get it verified. Come to find out the website did indeed have permission, but not for everything that was said....

Said? I'm not a beta tester, and I don't feel very enlightened on what was "said". It sounds like a GRAW1 review with a little info about Recon vs. Assault.

Lack of jumping, shooting off tires, no shooting while running, no VoIP.....hmmmmm, lotsa secrets outta the bag.

From the screens, I see a few things....like shooting the 50's, and new weaps.....not very much.

Edited by Hawseman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...