Today, an interview came out with Dave Georgeson, Director of Development for Sony Online Entertainment's upcoming MMO, Everquest Next: Landmark. In it, Georgeson discusses, among other things, SOE's decision to lift the Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) from their alpha test. Landmark recently launched in an alpha state, allowing fans who pre-ordered the game access to this phase, and all subsequent testing phases. The game was originally released with an NDA, preventing anyone in the alpha from discussing the test with outsiders. However, a mere 18 hours into the alpha test, Georgeson tweeted that that NDA had been lifted. In the interview today, Dave explained the reasoning behind that decision.

Link to interview:

http://massively.joystiq.com/2014/02/04/georgeson-on-landmarks-crafting-specializations-nda-and-roadm/

Dave Georgeson:

"To be honest, the reason we had an NDA is because I was really paranoid that we would launch and just fall over and everything would be very negative. We wanted to make sure that we had a window of time when we could make the corrections and make sure that it was fun for players before we started telling every one about it. The first weekend was so much fun, and the people really responded to the community, so we decided overnight to drop the NDA because we were having such a good time with the players."

...

He added, "Once people realized we were proud of our creation instead of hiding it behind a fence, it took a lot of the 'considers' and convinced them to try it."

This seems to indicate that SOE's fears about negative press from public access to the alpha state of their game were unfounded. So, I put these questions to the Elder Scrolls Online forums: Are NDA's still necessary today? Is the situation with EQN:L an exception to the rule, or is this evidence that the concept of the NDA is no longer necessary? Finally, should Zenimax lift its own NDA for subsequest beta tests of The Elder Scrolls Online leading up to launch?

-Travail.

Yes. I feel that without an NDA, people who were never in beta could [pretend they were] go around and say it svcked. I think an NDA protects against this sort of thing, even if you can't say it is good either.

It is necessary, well depends what sort of beta. People would just go around talking about all the bugs they encountered, and put potential customers off buying the game.. it is unfair to show the unfinished product.

And beta is more of bug finding rather than playing the game for fun, although you do get the feel for the game a little bit.

Since Beta's are in development, and some beta sessions are designed to have problems, why would any company want interim details and issues that they are working on to be talked about as if it was the shipped game. Things change during beta's and what is going on in the beginning is not what is going on at the end. Would any company want the impression of the game to be based on things that they are not going to have in the shipped game?

If I was a game developer, I would have an NDA during beta. In fact, I would try to figure out a way to sequester the beta testers so no leaks get out.

There's also a marketing reason, when you want to draw attention by divulging details about the game at your own pace. Without an NDA you haven't much to announce, since everything is already out there. So it's harder to keep control on the game visibility in the media.

Oh I think NDAs are necessary, anything in alpha/beta is subject to change, as well as all the problems and bugs you'll find, so it makes sense to try avoid as much of it getting out as they can because it may create negativity surrounding a game, especially when most problems will have been fixed by the time the game releases, which by then might possibly be too late, but then again, it's up to the developer of the game to decide when and if they lift an NDA, and whether they are confident enough with their product.

So then what do you all have to say about Landmark's lack of NDA? That game is in the alpha stages (less developed than a beta; only 60% of launch features are currently in the game) and the response from the fans has been quite positive. There is virtually zero negativity about Landmark right now, and SOE even admits that the excitement level from potential customers sky-rocketed once the NDA was lifted.

Does this not refute claims that a lack of NDA brings negative press?

-Travail.

yes but a lot of stuff isnt just talk and people can twitch stream and simulcast game play.

I think it is genius what SOE does. Because then EVERYONE, not just beta players can see the evolution and changes because there will be a natural progession of the game people can see for themselves.

EVERYONE knows betas are buggy, you cnt find anyone that would realistically use that as a way to bash a game and even if they tried 99% of the people would know better. BUT what would matter is if there was a bug on day 3 of an alpha and on day 45 that same bug existed, and if on video of day 98 that same bug was still there then you would have cause for criticism. Bugs ARE NOT the problem the lack of ADDRESSING them properly and timely is.

I am no fan of SOE and I think theyre second only to EA in terms of the worst game publishers around. But I think this move was great and sets a POSITIVE precedent rather than a negative one that so many other companies have been doing recently.

because if anyone can come in and bash EQ Next landmarks based on bugs and bad performance on its first day ever going live to the public those people have zero credibility. Even if it takes a month as long as they address issues as they come along.

Some f us have seen out share of alphas, and it is generlly more than a month in that strictly controlled environment before games get close to stable. When you have this type of alpha with as many people as they have who bought their way in its a total game changer.

One video showed 2499 people online. I would assume the guy shooting it was 2500. IMO that is probably a level cap for a server. Conjecture sure but a pretty educated guess. So how many sevrers did they launch with? Were all servers unstable? Just the log in server? How many new servers did they create? Has the game gotten better since the first day?

Well we can ask those questions and we can get answers, or people could just make videos to show us.

video doesnt generally lie. While it might not relay the exact graphical quality it can certainly relay major performance issues, animations, mechanics and general game play expectations.

To spin this as something that every company should not do going forward is laughable. If the company has the ability to make and fix their game and release a product worthy of being released there isnt any reason NOT to do it.