[icecoldduke]

StrikerMan780, on 21 October 2015 - 05:29 AM, said:

Unless they give me an actual NDA to sign, they can fuck right off. Bethesda clearly doesn't seem to know how a real NDA works. I should know- I've had to go through the real paperwork when I got the Terminal Velocity/Fury3/Hellbender sources.

Bethesda obviously knows how NDA's work :/, they have been doing gamedev a lot longer then you. ESignature for this type of thing would work just as well as a hand signature. While I doubt Bethesda will go after people who leak videos/screenshots, I do think they will block leakers from getting future builds.

Didn't get a e-mail this time around, maybe the next time they do a closed beta test.

[Striker]

icecoldduke, on 21 October 2015 - 01:30 PM, said:

Bethesda obviously knows how NDA's work :/, they have been doing gamedev a lot longer then you. ESignature for this type of thing would work just as well as a hand signature. While I doubt Bethesda will go after people who leak videos/screenshots, I do think they will block leakers from getting future builds.

Didn't get a e-mail this time around, maybe the next time they do a closed beta test.

Gamedev != Studying Law. All Bethesda is doing is waving their rich, corporate dick around, spewing bullshit fine-print to scare people into "do what we say, or we'll slap you with our big corporate dick".

There was no "E-Signature" or ToS screen of any sort. There was no signing to be done. There was only a pre-order of Wolfenstein a steam login page/e-mail field, and a subsequent E-Mail sent to participants saying they're in the alpha/beta. So, they can fuck off with their bait & trap horseshit. People sharing footage and screenshots of this Alpha is inevitable, all Bethesda is doing here is shooting themselves in the foot and fucking over potential customers in the end.

The only legitimate form of signature of a binding legal document online is to physically sign the document, either via sending a scan of the document, or sending a digitally handwritten signature back. Not only that, but a confirmation of identity is also required. (Full Name, Address and Phone). Anything else is tripe as far as the law is concerned. I've already been through this legal process before on more than one occasion, I know what the fuck I'm talking about, please piss off.

[Hendricks266]

Does anyone know what court ruling(s) declared EULAs to be unenforceable?

[Striker]

A EULA and an NDA are two very different things. Also, a EULA can only be legally binding and enforceable if you are forced to accept/agree to the terms before use of a product.

When I signed up to the alpha, I didn't receive a EULA, nor any checkbox that I needed to check in order to confirm that I agree with the terms.

Unless something comes up where they won't let the game boot up until you read and accept the terms, they have no way of proving that I was even presented with the terms in the first place. Unless the law has changed recently without my knowing, It wouldn't hold up in court.

[Hendricks266]

StrikerMan780, on 21 October 2015 - 04:41 PM, said:

A EULA and an NDA are two very different things.

You're missing my point. I refer to your standard "click the Accept radio button to install" EULA which I had heard is legally unenforceable (and therefore not binding). This is what Ice referred to as an "e-signature", and is therefore also applicable in this discussion regarding NDAs.

StrikerMan780, on 21 October 2015 - 04:41 PM, said:

Also, a EULA can only be legally binding and enforceable if you are forced to accept/agree to the terms before use of a product.

What did I just post? Admittedly it is US-centric.

[Striker]

Hendricks266, on 21 October 2015 - 04:53 PM, said:

You're missing my point. I refer to your standard "click the Accept radio button to install" EULA which I had heard is legally unenforceable (and therefore not binding). This is what Ice referred to as an "e-signature", and is therefore also applicable in this discussion regarding NDAs.


What did I just post? Admittedly it is US-centric.

You should have been more specific. I didn't even know that was what you were referring to. (BTW, did you confuse me for another poster for a sec? I just have a feeling that is the case.)

[Hendricks266]

StrikerMan780, on 21 October 2015 - 04:54 PM, said:

You should have been more specific. I didn't even know that was what you were referring to.

How else are EULAs commonly presented to end users?

[Striker]

Hendricks266, on 21 October 2015 - 04:56 PM, said:

How else are EULAs commonly presented to end users?

I meant more specific in regarding to the context of the discussion. (I thought originally you were assuming that I was saying that they were unenforceable, and was asking "where do they say that?" in doubt, essentially.)

Either way, EULAs can be presented in numerous ways, via a page with Radio Boxes like you said, In-App, via a Text File or PDF, and through E-Mail are several ways I've come across them.

[Hendricks266]

StrikerMan780, on 21 October 2015 - 05:00 PM, said:

I meant more specific in regarding to the context of the discussion. Either way, EULAs can be presented in numerous ways, via a page with Radio Boxes like you said, In-App, via a Text File or PDF, and through E-Mail are several ways I've come across them.

I don't mean the conveyance of the text itself, but the explicit or implicit gathering of "agreement", which the court case I seem to remember determined was not sufficient to be legally binding.

[Striker]

Hendricks266, on 21 October 2015 - 05:01 PM, said:

I don't mean the conveyance of the text itself, but the explicit or implicit gathering of "agreement", which the court case I seem to remember determined was not sufficient to be legally binding.

Ah. (Edited my previous post btw, just to clarify what I took it as originally.)

I think I know what case you're talking about, though. The names of the companies involved escape me however. I don't like to use Wikipedia as reference, since it's not exactly the most reliable, but perhaps this might jog your memory? https://en.wikipedia...e_United_States

One thing I know for certain, where I live, a EULA is only enforceable if agreed to before purchase, not after. Just like in Germany.

[Hendricks266]

StrikerMan780, on 21 October 2015 - 05:11 PM, said:

I think I know what case you're talking about, though. The names of the companies involved escape me however. I don't like to use Wikipedia as reference, since it's not exactly the most reliable, but perhaps this might jog your memory? https://en.wikipedia...e_United_States

That's a far more nuanced understanding than I had until now. Thanks.

[icecoldduke]

StrikerMan780, on 21 October 2015 - 04:09 PM, said:

Gamedev != Studying Law. All Bethesda is doing is waving their rich, corporate dick around, spewing bullshit fine-print to scare people into "do what we say, or we'll slap you with our big corporate dick".

There was no "E-Signature" or ToS screen of any sort. There was no signing to be done. There was only a pre-order of Wolfenstein a steam login page/e-mail field, and a subsequent E-Mail sent to participants saying they're in the alpha/beta. So, they can fuck off with their bait & trap horseshit. People sharing footage and screenshots of this Alpha is inevitable, all Bethesda is doing here is shooting themselves in the foot and fucking over potential customers in the end.

The only legitimate form of signature of a binding legal document online is to physically sign the document, either via sending a scan of the document, or sending a digitally handwritten signature back. Not only that, but a confirmation of identity is also required. (Full Name, Address and Phone). Anything else is tripe as far as the law is concerned. I've already been through this legal process before on more than one occasion, I know what the fuck I'm talking about, please piss off.

Bethesda has a army of well trained lawyers at there disposal, I think they know how to protect there work better then some college kid . This is strictly a business decision, I don't pretend to understand their reasons but you can bet they have secured there position legally very very well.

Quote

Does anyone know what court ruling(s) declared EULAs to be unenforceable

In the e-mail that got sent out there was a link were users had to accept a NDA, not EULA.

Taken from http://doom.com/en-gb/alpha/faq

Quote

All participants will be required to agree to a legally binding non-disclosure agreement (NDA) which expressly prohibits posting or sharing comments and/or content from the Closed Alpha. The Closed Alpha builds will contain watermarks that identify each participant. Those who violate the NDA will be banned from all future tests, including the Beta, and may be subject to further legal action.

You can always get the build, and start posting content you shouldn't and see what happens, since you know what your doing .

[Hendricks266]

icecoldduke, on 21 October 2015 - 08:07 PM, said:

I think they know how to protect there work better then some college kid .

You can quit using ad hominem fallacies. Credentials and experience are only useful as heuristics, not as grounds for formal reasoning. Your post makes its point just as well without this.

[icecoldduke]

Hendricks266, on 21 October 2015 - 08:33 PM, said:

You can quit using ad hominem fallacies. Credentials and experience are only useful as heuristics, not as grounds for formal reasoning. Your post makes its point just as well without this.

Point taken .

[MusicallyInspired]

*their

[Hendricks266]

MusicallyInspired, on 21 October 2015 - 08:57 PM, said:

*their

Also *you're, but your point is?

</micromoderating>

[OpenMaw]

Hendricks266, on 21 October 2015 - 09:21 PM, said:

Also *you're, but your point is?

</micromoderating>

What I think MusicallyInspired was trying to convey, good sir, was:

Spoiler

Or not, who knows.


I'm gonna go cry myself to sleep.

[Hendricks266]

Commando Nukem, on 21 October 2015 - 10:54 PM, said:

Spoiler

I said micromoderating, not micropenis.


...

[Malgon]

MetHy, on 21 October 2015 - 05:02 AM, said:

So what's the specs of the new Doom?

As taken from the Doom Alpha FAQ:

Quote

What are the recommended PC system specs for the Closed Alpha?

The Closed Alpha is designed to test a variety of PC configurations. The following system specs for the PC are subject to change and do not reflect the minimum or recommended system specs of the final product.

What are the recommended PC system specifications?

Minimum Spec (720p)

64-bit Windows 7/Windows 8.1
Intel Core i5 @ 3.3 GHz or better / AMD FX-8350 @ 4.0 GHz or better
8 GB RAM
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 (2GB VRAM) / AMD Radeon HD 7870 (2GB VRAM)
6GB HDD space
Steam account
High speed internet connection

Recommended Spec (1080p)

64-bit Windows 7/Windows 8.1
Intel Core i7 @ 3.4GHz or better / AMD FX-8350 @ 4.0GHz or better
8GB RAM
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 (3GB or more VRAM) / AMD Radeon R9 280 (3GB or more VRAM)
6GB HDD space
Steam account
High speed internet connection

[MusicallyInspired]

Hendricks266, on 21 October 2015 - 09:21 PM, said:

Also *you're, but your point is?

</micromoderating>

Just because.

[Micky C]

It's nice to see they've gotten rid of the megatexture system, or whatever caused Wolfenstein TNO to be 40GB and still have below-average texture resolution.

High speed internet connection required?

[MetHy]

Heh, I barely have the minimum specs I wonder if that can run the game at 60fps...

[Cage]

Are they serious with those requirements? I'm above the recomended spec, but I've built my PC to work on 2d and 3d graphics not just for games. They didn't specify the CPU generation though - I think Wolf: TNO listed i7-920 or 930 as recommended, but that one is old news and from what I've heard, is comparable to modern i3 which is the budget Intel cpu I guess? If they mean stuff like 4770 or 4790 which are like high level consumer then it's really crazy.

Then again, it's still only the alpha stage and the final should be a lot more optimised. Some developers tend to be lazy on the optimisation nowadays though

[Inspector Lagomorf]

Quote

Recommended Spec (1080p)

64-bit Windows 7/Windows 8.1
Intel Core i7 @ 3.4GHz or better / AMD FX-8350 @ 4.0GHz or better
8GB RAM
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 (3GB or more VRAM) / AMD Radeon R9 280 (3GB or more VRAM)
6GB HDD space
Steam account
High speed internet connection

YOWZER! GTX 780?

My GTX 960 falls in between the recommended and minimum requirements. What sort of graphical monstrosity is this game going to be?

[Lunick]

[OpenMaw]

Nice use of the Quake 1 quad damage sound there!

The only thing that honestly bothers me is the genero-factor on the guns. Most of them just look like blobs of gun-tech-porn in front of the screen. The only two I instantly recognize visually are the super and the plasma.

[Tea Monster]

It looks very UT in how it plays and the little announcements. Not sure about the constant chatter of the announcer.

The Demon rune looks like a lot of fun.

[Player Lin]

For some reasons...I have lots of Quake-Live feels more than DooM...(never played UT)

Well, my interest still in Single Player part of the game...

[MetHy]

The Demon rune looks like it's supposed to be the cool overpowered power-up, except it's not powerful at all. That or the guy playing sucks. Although they should have plenty of time to balance things out with peoples' reports and everything...

The voice of the announcer looks super bland. Like he's bored or something.

Most of the tech stuff look generic too...

But this video looks fun, I see Q3A, I see UT, I see Doom 2. Personaly I'm mostly interested in the singleplayer though.

[icecoldduke]

Commando Nukem, on 22 October 2015 - 06:30 AM, said:

Most of them just look like blobs of gun-tech-porn in front of the screen.

I love that, it was a great description of what I was thinking. I like the Demon Rune thing though, that's pretty cool.