194 réponses à ce sujet

[Masterchef601]

javierabegazo wrote...

Masterchef601 wrote...

Jav, do you actually know? As in, you've been told something and told to shut up about it, or you're just hoping like the rest of us?

Let's just say it has absolutely nothing to do with Hope

Gotcha.

[Wrex.the.next.spectre]

Masterchef601 wrote...

javierabegazo wrote...

Masterchef601 wrote...

Jav, do you actually know? As in, you've been told something and told to shut up about it, or you're just hoping like the rest of us?

Let's just say it has absolutely nothing to do with Hope

Gotcha.

Hence, why many believe that Javier is the Shadow Broker or Barla Von. Personally, I think Barla Von, just because Volus are awesome.

[tommythetomcat]

 Well according to someone on the legacy forums that read the OXM review.  

Posted 01/16/10 17:10 (GMT) by tehturian
well they didn't like how the crew on board the ship were very static you never saw them walk around the normandy.
moving the ship(like me1)to other systems didn't feel very complex.
no driving around planets
shepard is supposed to be tough but he can't run very far :shades:

So how sure are you Jav?

[javierabegazo]

tommythetomcat wrote...

So how sure are you Jav?

I'm dead sure, but can't say more than that

[javierabegazo]

When questioned about the Hammerhead, Jesse Houston said this on the matter last week:

Posted 01/11/10 03:21 (GMT) by Jesse Houston
http://meforums.biow...forum=144&sp=75
Just thought I would throw it out there that we are embargoed on a number of things that we have information on.

This often can be because of legal reasons - As an example the USA's SEC (The governing body for share holder based companies in the USA) requires us to announce product features in certain ways. If I drop the bomb on a big feature on the forums without a press release for example I could cause a number of big legal issues. Especially if it's something that will change the face of the game industry or is a major selling feature that will affect stock value (you'd be amazed what affects stock price)

Another could be that Marketing or PR have given exclusive publishing rights to that feature for a certain period to a magazine or website.

Further, (and more often than not) it could just be that we aren't 100% finished working on something and don't want to show you it until it's completely done, that way we're ensuring that you see something that is totally full of awesome!

So if we're being tight lipped about something try to remember that there is probably a good reason, and while I often encourage members of the community to dig for answers, if we're totally and repeatedly stonewalling you on something please respect that there is generally good reason for it. I think it's safe to say that through my actions and many of my peers at BioWare you can tell we LOVE talking with you folks about our games and including you in as much of the day to day stuff as we can!

-Jess

Modifié par javierabegazo, 16 janvier 2010 - 05:49 .

[tommythetomcat]

Why would a reviewer make a point of saying you can not drive around planets if that is simply not true.



Whats really going on more likely is yes there is a replacement for the Mako but it is used like it was on the primary mission planets. Riding on rails seems like a pointless time to upgrade the Mako if you can't make use of the improvements as much.

[javierabegazo]

Did you see the exact article text for yourself?

[izmirtheastarach]

I fully understand Jesse's points there, and they are all valid. My problem is requiring reporters to sign NDAs. If you don't want people to report on something, don't show it to them. Otherwise they should be able to report on anything they've seen. If not, then you are using journalists as an extension of your marketing team, which is not supposed to be their role.

I know that it's just the way things are now, but I'd love to see a crazy rogue games journalist totally blow a launch for a company, just to see what the legal fallout would be. I don't understand how you can enforce an agreement that gives away one of your guaranteed constitutional rights.

Modifié par izmirtheastarach, 16 janvier 2010 - 05:57 .

[javierabegazo]

It's not so much a legal fallout, as it is the Game Publisher basically after being betrayed will never grant previews and exclusives to said Press.



That really really HURTS whichever press as well.

[izmirtheastarach]

You are correct. But that's what I find so funny about making people signs those NDAs. They are worthless. They have no legal teeth. Even a verbal agreement has none. So why pretend there is a contract? Everyone knows the score. They know they will be cut of if they break an embargo date.

Either way, they point is that the entire journalism community should refuse to sign these silly things, and stop letting these companies dictate terms to them treat them like employees.

Modifié par izmirtheastarach, 16 janvier 2010 - 06:07 .

[KingDan97]

Would you sign away a portion of your right temporarily to get an exclusive that could get you rich once you're allowed to talk about it? I bet you would. If you wouldn't then that's your choice. If a company decides it's worth it then they'll sign it regardless.

Modifié par KingDan97, 16 janvier 2010 - 06:46 .

[izmirtheastarach]

You've missed my point. You CANNOT sign away your rights. It would be like signing a contract with someone saying that you will be their slave, and then having them try to enforce that contract.



And I also don't believe Javier is "under NDA". I believe that someone may have told him something, and asked him not to reveal it. That's a different issue. In case like that, he is protecting his source, and generally just being a nice guy. Either way, Javier is not IGN or Gamespot.

[javierabegazo]

izmirtheastarach wrote...



And I also don't believe Javier is "under NDA"..

From Jesse Houston's Twitter

[KingDan97]

An NDA is legally binding and you can be taken to court or fined because of it, that's the way things are whether you like it or not. There are things that are legally binding that are unwritten, it's part of the elasticity clause. Judges had decided that should someone sign a document and have it notarized, it is a pledge. No one can trade those pledges but you personally can't avoid them if you sign.

[KingDan97]

javierabegazo wrote...

izmirtheastarach wrote...



And I also don't believe Javier is "under NDA"..

From Jesse Houston's Twitter

Heh, I was being ambiguous because I didn't know if we could talk about it.

[javierabegazo]

Hey, I'm just pointing out something that Jesse Houston wrote!

[izmirtheastarach]

Super. Once again, the constitution guarantees free speech. If anyone challenged a ruling like that and took it to the supreme court, they would win and the whole thing would fall apart.

javierabegazo wrote...



I know something you don't know! Neener neener, neener!

You be quiet.

[KingDan97]

If someone took it to supreme court it would cost more then the fines for breaking the damned NDA, I fail to see your logic...

[epoch_]

Wrex.the.next.spectre wrote...



Posting images FTW!

that isn't the mako 2. Its just another one of those static vehicles you see in various locations. Different model though.

[izmirtheastarach]

KingDan97 wrote...

If someone took it to supreme court it would cost more then the fines for breaking the damned NDA, I fail to see your logic...

No doubt it would. I am not saying it wouldn't. I am simply saying you would win, and the whole system of NDAs would fall apart. I agree that no one is likely to do it, as you say there is no logical business reason to do it. But it sure would be nice if somone did it anyways.

[KingDan97]

It'd be nice if someone tried to change a flawed system by being more inconvenienced then what the flawed system does to them? Please, explain. You also have no guarantee that that would change the system because most companies would keep on holding people to the NDA. It would require a massive uprise in the system of most major news sources saying, "We son't like this and we won't take it any more!" Which would have 1 of two results.



Either NDA's would be gone, or hype would become even further privatized with a few remaining sources still agreeing to NDA's and getting all the exclusives. The companies that basically said "screw you" would most likely not get much more money due to lower hits and no direct first hit news and would go out of business. A power gap would open and new places with shoddier journalism, worse reporters and a lower chance of success would start to pop up.



Please tell me, how is this a good alternative to you not getting news because companies are following business models?

[izmirtheastarach]

KingDan97 wrote...

It'd be nice if someone tried to change a flawed system by being more inconvenienced then what the flawed system does to them? Please, explain. You also have no guarantee that that would change the system because most companies would keep on holding people to the NDA. It would require a massive uprise in the system of most major news sources saying, "We son't like this and we won't take it any more!" Which would have 1 of two results.

Either NDA's would be gone, or hype would become even further privatized with a few remaining sources still agreeing to NDA's and getting all the exclusives. The companies that basically said "screw you" would most likely not get much more money due to lower hits and no direct first hit news and would go out of business. A power gap would open and new places with shoddier journalism, worse reporters and a lower chance of success would start to pop up.

Please tell me, how is this a good alternative to you not getting news because companies are following business models?

No thanks. We've taken this thread completely off topic. All I said orignally was "this sucks". I didn't want to get sucked into an argument about it, but I let myself be anways.

Most Americans don't care about the constitution anyways, so why bother?

[jakl201]

They said that they would reveal details next week. That's waiting three to five days. No need to keep on speculating.

[izmirtheastarach]

Yep. It's going to be busy week.

[KingDan97]

What's the fun in not speculating? That's like not looking for christmas presents, or not trying to get the first slice of cake. Sure, you'll get it later... but it's so much more satisfying to get it now.