The Heartlands Alpha gameplay and developer video has been leaked online - reported by reputable gaming media outlets (Eurogamer).
Now Ubisoft/Massive/RedStorm are in damage limitation mode and it boggles my mind why you give alpha access to random people who have nothing to loose by leaking or showing gameplay. I know people with 2 hours gameplay and were gifted TD2 who were invited.
What is your process for inviting people for Alphas?
Do you think if you set a criteria for Alpha Access that those selected would most likely respect the NDA and give you the desired feedback?
- ETF Members
- Players with high total playtime in TD2
- Players with max commendation score in TD2
- Community members who actively engage with you
-etc
Are more likely to obey the NDA and give you great feedback.
Makes the tin foil hat in me wonder if this is just done as publicity![]()
Originally Posted by SuspiciousPixel Go to original post
My answers are in bold above. Truth, it sounds like they are looking to keep us interested till the movie and possibly TD3.
The existing selection process is flawed, but I think you need to separate the two issues:Originally Posted by SuspiciousPixel Go to original post
- Who from the community gets to participate in the play test
- Incentivizing compliance with the NDA
For the first, I disagree with the idea that only people who are heavily invested in the existing games should be selected. Feedback from people who bounced off the existing games can be just as useful as from people who hit 1000 SHD months ago. Remember this game is not just aimed at existing players.
For the second, a ban from future play tests is clearly irrelevant for some. Either make the punishments stronger, or provide a greater incentive for following with the NDA.
Why would a player that put in 5000 hours be more honorable then one who has played 5 hours? The two aren't necessarily tied together. What you need is consequences for one's actions. What is the price for leaking info? Far too many want their 15 seconds of fame and if they aren't willing to be true to their word. No amount of time played will decide that.Originally Posted by chicagolongball Go to original post
We don't agree in much, but in this case we do.Originally Posted by YodaMan 3D Go to original post
Especially considering the "big" players are often known cheaters(World First raids/Turret damage exploit), it seems to me that such a person would be more likely to break an NDA as long as they get what they want(internet fame).
Those who are selected are likely chosen at random, much like most surveys.Originally Posted by SuspiciousPixel Go to original post
Course, although not typically recommended, there are also reasons to have bias sampling, depending on the parameters. Randomness is done for the sake of time and validity, compared to manually recruiting each participant.
Cool, I’ve been a Alpha Tester for Division 2 for years now.Originally Posted by Imagine_Brata Go to original post