Slashdot Log In
Atari Tries To Supress Bad Reviews, Claims Piracy
Posted by
kdawson
on Sun Jun 22, 2008 02:42 PM
from the such-small-portions-too dept.
from the such-small-portions-too dept.
im_thatoneguy sends in an account up at Shacknews about Atari's actions to get early reviews of its upcoming game Alone In the Dark pulled from Web sites in Europe. Atari sued the German site 4Players, alleging piracy, and also cancelled an advertising deal on the site, after a pre-release review gave the game only 68%. 4Players posted a commentary (translation) alleging that Atari is doing this bcause the review is unfavorable. Shacknews reports that Atari has also demanded that both Gamer.no and GameReactor remove early reviews — both reviews gave the game a score of 3/10. Kotaku editorializes: "[Does Atari] fear that, because these outlets may have received copies of the game 'early' (i.e. from pirated copies), that they're somehow reviewing incomplete code, which could affect their opinion of the game? Maybe. Pessimists could, however, be forgiven for thinking it's a convenient excuse for Atari to attack negative reviews of the only game they're releasing in 2008 that has any chance of making them some money."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Hmm.... (Score:5, Insightful)
If they have improved the game from the earlier 'privacy' version then i am sure all these sites would be willing to re-consider their reviews based on the new game play.
What Atari fears is that the earlier review was the 'final' version of the game and these reviews may harm purchase from people who may accidentally buy the game thinking it to be better than it is.
Re:Hmm.... (Score:5, Informative)
At least one site (gamer.no) that gave an early review have confirmed they reviewed a store-bought retail version. Granted, the store may have broken the intended street date, but it wasn't some shady downloaded copy that was reviewed.
At least it has gotten Atari and the game some publicity.
Parent
Re:Hmm.... (Score:5, Interesting)
The German site also claims to have their version legally bought, which means that they could immediately charge Atari for making unfounded claims against them (based on the laws of coersion/intimidation and also the laws against threatening with legal action).
Parent
Re:Hmm.... (Score:5, Informative)
oh yes they do have the right to sue them but it only depends if the pirated version is different than the released version. If they are the same then the review still stands.
There may be an issue with regarding to ho they got the copy of the game but the review still stands. So it all boils down to "Is the review of the pirated version the same as the released version"
Parent
Re:Hmm.... (Score:5, Funny)
No the pirated version is not the same as the final version. The pirate version lacks annoying DRM and so provides a more enjoyable experience.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Man, how much must the final suck, then?
Re:Hmm.... (Score:5, Informative)
And from the TFA they didn't use a pirated copy. Someone broke the embargo on selling/giving the proper official boxed copy of the game prior to a set date.
Parent
Re:Hmm.... (Score:5, Insightful)
But seriously if they did manage to get their hands on a boxed version prior to release I don't see how they can scream. It also might be a good test to show their true motives if someone set up a fake review praising the game and pointed out to Atari that they did the same thing. I'd bet Atari wouldn't say a word. Do they really think that this kind of crap is going to help in ANY way? Have they never heard of the Streisand effect? Now the story has been slahdotted and I'm sure it'll spread to most of the tech and gamer sites so instead of being able to sneak their bowel churner past the gate now everyone will know that it sucks. A really stupid move by the legal department at Atari IMHO. If they wanted to get the review changed they should have wined them and dined them and bought a bunch of ads. Instead the just stirred up the hornets nest. But that is my 02c,YMMV
Parent
Re:Hmm.... (Score:5, Informative)
I do remember when Infogrames (was would be renamed Atari) owned Game One, the first game channel in France. Marcus did a very bad review from one of their games, he was fired, and nearly the whole staff. I don't think it was because of picary...
Now they (the first staff from Game One)found their own game channel, Nolife. http://nolife-tv.com/ [nolife-tv.com]
The Ankama company games just put money into this tv, but I doubt they will do the Marcus incident again.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? It was my impression that a review was one group's opinion of a game. A review can be as simple as "the game sucked. It wouldn't run on my PC. 0 / 10" Without real slander, what would be the basis of a suit?
Now in the grand scheme of things, they should be sure to review final code. But even if they don't, what would be the legal basis for a suit?
Re:Hmm.... (Score:5, Insightful)
God I love Slashdot's fluid moral code.
The same article that reported the take down request / suit, reported the copy reviewed as a legal distribution copy designed for reviews. I don't see any indication where the site was obviously willing to break the law.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah.
Re:Hmm.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sadly,in all likelihood most of them will just do whatever Atari wants to simply keep there from being any bad blood. I noticed in TFA that most had taken the reviews down almost immediately after receiving the threat. Either way the Streisand and slashdot effect on the story should mean that they are pretty much screwed as far as sales. I know that I would have probably picked it up in the bargain bin just because of the name Alone in the Dark,but after seeing this asshatery I wouldn't give them a dollar for it. But that is my 02c,YMMV
Parent
Re:Hmm.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Because people maybe don't give a fsck where they got the copy from, as long as they keep them from dropping some hard earned cash on crappy games?
If gamers care where they got the copy from, it's at best wondering how a review page got a game a few weeks earlier when the review is outstandingly good despite the game being mediocre at best...
Parent
Re:Hmm.... (Score:5, Insightful)
And I love how you've gone off the handle without checking out the facts.
As many here have said, the sites in question say they got the games completely legally.
Why would you believe the company who stands to lose sales by bad reviews over the website which stands to lose a lot of money over using a pirate version (and not gain much by using one)?
Way to look into the issue before becoming indignant.
Parent
Troll Alert (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Hmm.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Since when is buying a retail copy before the street date illegal?
It might be a violation of the agreement between the publisher and retailers, but it has no bearing on the consumer whatsoever.
Parent
Re:Hmm.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
SUUUUUURE.... improving a 3/10 game to 10/10 in only a month. I got an idea. Let's hire THESE guys for Microsoft and see what miracles they can do with Vista in only 30 days.
"all publicity is good publicity"... (Score:5, Insightful)
... once again. Before I read this I didn't know about "Alone in the Dark". I guess their strategy worked
"all publicity is good publicity"? NO IT'S NOT! (Score:3, Insightful)
From the TFA - Gamer.no says game bought legally (Score:5, Informative)
Kotaku article has an update:
Just take it (Score:5, Interesting)
So I guess no one has learned from the wise ways of Penny Arcade's ad campaign [wired.com].
On another note, if you get a bad review, you should take it. Crying like a baby only emphasizes the ratings. You may get sales from a small fraction of people who play it to verify that it sucks, but sooner or later all the review sites will say the game sucks and it will only make the situation worse. The whole "bad publicity is good publicity" paradigm is long dead in this age of gamers.
Re:Just take it (Score:5, Funny)
I love bad reviews, especially those dripping with badly-spelled verbal venom. Here are some choice quotations from random forum postings about my own MINERVA [hylobatidae.org] mod for Half-Life 2:
Other people [rockpapershotgun.com] claimed to like it, but I derive great fun from tracing Referers to the website, and reading what the Truly Informed Forum Users inhabiting this 'ere internet think of it...
Strangely, nobody's yet told me it's rubbish in an email. I must try harder.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
His mod is incredibly well done. It's the only single-player mod I've ever played through twice.
When will they learn? (Score:5, Interesting)
68% is unfavourable? (Score:5, Informative)
In the UK, if you get 68% in your final year exams at university you get an upper second class degree, and might be able to talk your way up to a first. So 68% is a masters/PhD candidates mark at most places.
Game ratings are ludicrous in that they use perhaps the top 40% of the scale. Not since the days of Amiga Power have I seen a dire game get a single digit % score.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree, it's absurd. They use only the upper range of the spectrum, except when a game is incredibly bad. Also, you can't be so precise with something so subjective; that's why I think magazines should use the old "star" rating. Some examples, in my opinion:
0 star = abysmal: Big Rigs, Action 52, ET, Extreme PaintBrawl.
1 star = crappy: First Samurai, Gods, Hook, James Bond Jr, Sword of Sodan.
2 stars = weak: Daikatana, Power Rangers, Outlander, 3 Ninjas Kick Back.
3 stars = good: Mickey Mania, Cool Spot, Fina
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I find reviews of films useless in the decision process for watching a film. I am only able to isolate the third category through rotten tomatoes/imdb (obscenely low scores = category three). The only genre I intensely dislike is slasher films and action films, so they are easy to weed out via the promotional m
Re:68% is unfavourable? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, so I wasn't the only one wondering.
Back in the days (the good ol' ones, a few of you might remember if Alzheimer didn't get you yet) there were basically five categories for games.
The 90-100 games which were absolutely awesome. That's a grade a handpicked few got. Getting a 91 already meant that you made it. You created a game that will be remembered a decade from now. Every year, about 20 or so games got to this lofty realm of divinity.
Then there were the 60-90 games. They were good. Really good! The kind that's worth its money. If you were at least halfway into the genre, you had to have them.
Then there was that area of about 40-60. They were ... well, half baked, usually. Quite ok, but nothing to write home about. If you're into the genre really badly and if that really was your thing, you could buy them, but it was anything but a must-have.
After that it got rather ugly. 20-40 was reserved for games that were quite bad. Even if you're into the genre, you might want to wait until it's in the bargain bin. And even then, you might want to avoid them lest you start to hate what you used to love.
And then there was the rest, the kind of games you don't even want to hear about, where paying you to play them would have been an insult because of the time wasted. 0-20. Usually, about 1-2 games per magazine got that review, just to show that yes, there ARE games this bad and companies DO actually try to sell them. They were more a comic relief than a review, usually, and the writers also got quite creative describing them. Often, those reviews were more interesting and witty than a lot of the "average" ones.
This all changed somewhere between the 80s and today. Today, the reviews are usually in the 90-100 range if the game is at least halfway playable and grants you more than an hour of fun. Go to your average review page and check for yourself. How many games hit that formerly so lofty grounds? 20? 30? Of the 50 reviewed?
A review of 70 is already bad. A review of 60 a disaster. Anything lower than that probably mean that it won't even install without an error.
Parent
Pirated == different? (Score:4, Informative)
In all my swashbuckling years (gone by, that is - I've since grown up and can actually afford to buy my games), I've only ever played 2 games where the pirated version's gameplay is actually different from the retail one - Postal (might have been postal 2, actually) and Red Alert 2. Oddly enough, both games had the same "different" gameplay in that certain pirated/cracked versions would work for about 30seconds and then everything on screen would explode and/or die.
Oh how I laughed.
Anyway, the point is that I very much doubt any pirated versions are different from the retail version of the game and Atari is just trying to stir up shit for publicity's sake - and good luck to them, but I still doubt there is actually a difference between the two (unless in-your-face-DRM counts as gameplay these days).
But for the sake of a good conversation, what other "different" anti-piracy schemes have you all come across in games, such as the above mentioned "kill everything after 30s" technique?
Re:Pirated == different? (Score:4, Informative)
But for the sake of a good conversation, what other "different" anti-piracy schemes have you all come across in games, such as the above mentioned "kill everything after 30s" technique?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not sure if you had a different version than I did, but my copy of Sim City came with a pamphlet of codes composed of pairs of blocks with different corners of the blocks shaded, listed next to cities and their populations - the game gave you some combination of codes and populations and asked for the city name (or something like that).
The best part was, it was printed in black on red paper so you couldn't photocopy it. My grandmother and I took the time to hand-copy the thing, line by line, onto graph pape
After you stopped laughing about the translation (Score:5, Informative)
Because of AitD previews, Atari pulled already paid for ad campaigns. Requests for testing versions were completely ignored.
Literally minutes after the reviews were online, Atari lawyers demanded that 4Players.de pulls the reviews, claiming they were "not actual objective product tests" (product tests as in refrigerators, vacuum cleaners, not something like games that can't objectively tested and which therefore do not fall under regulations regarding product tests). Also, because 4P tested based on the retail version before the street date, they alleged that 4P had downloaded the game illegally (they bought it early from a retailer they have contacts with). They allege that 4P just wanted "first review!" (ignoring that print magazines had even earlier reviews). The lawyers set the value of the case at 50,000 Euro.
Later, they tried the same to 2 Norwegian online mags, Gamer.no and Gamereactor.no, with the same results, namely none.
Re:After you stopped laughing about the translatio (Score:5, Informative)
Hey! I just finished translating the whole article ;_;
Since it reveals some things about the magazine's attitude as well, I publish it here anyway:
(Note that I didn't proof-read it)
Atari really tries everything to obfuscate our reports: First they ignored our questions about Alone in the Dark in its early stages of development, then they canceled an already arranged advertising deal after our preview, then they didn't provide us with samples of the test version even though we asked, and now they're even getting out their lawyers and want to instill fear in us with a 50,000 Euro lawsuit. What's next? Activating firecrackers in our offices? Throwing soccer-balls at the editors' wives?
It's getting more and more ridiculous. The fact that publishers like to interfere with the freedom of the press has been demonstrated by JoWooD in 2006 in a most demonstrating way in the case of Gothic 3: They wanted us to take our report offline after a threatening call, and the magazine PC PowerPlay was to vanish from newspaper stands. Both magazines resisted and have in doing so strengthened the Culture of Criticism of the German press landscape.
Atari is now demonstrating that publishers tend to lose their nerves when their games receive unfavorable reviews. And now, with their specious accusations of laughableness, they're [making it worse]. [Here's the order of events:] Yesterday afternoon, we published our review of Alone in the Dark. The game got 68% and therefore got a satisfactory rating. Yesterday evening, we got a facsimile from Atari's lawyers, extracts of which we can't help but share with you. If Germany shouldn't be able to laugh about anything anymore after tonight's match with Portugal, check this out:
'By publishing this "review" (original: "test") you are violating applicable laws and infringing upon Atari's rights.'
Hello? Are we in China now? Or in Iran? Here I had to gag on this as a journalist because Atari with its sloppy dubs against the rights of German listeners - Are they now allowed to sue for damages because they are avoiding paying for professional voice actors but still want the full price for a game with amateurish voice acting?
And now the quintessence of the ridiculous accusations:
'Your "review" isn't. The game is to be published on June 20, 2008. Your "review" must therefore be based on the pre-release version that was only to be used for preliminary commentatorship.'
So is it the job of lawyers and publishers now, to determine what constitutes a "review"? The fact that some printed magazines didn't use the pre-release version either for their test, because their articles were published much earlier than ours, doesn't appear to concern Atari. Because it is quite common now that printed reviews aren't always based on the final versions of a game - See Gothic 3.
Just too bad that we actually reviewed the final version. Atari's thinks (in surprising ignorance about distribution channels), that we can't even have the offical final releases - because Atari, as a precaution, didn't even send us those, even though we asked for them. However, we're used to such methods after years of reviewing and bought the final versions for the Wii, PS2, Xbox 360, and PC already on Monday at a retailer that we trust, who gets almost all games a couple days before their official release date.
Instead of thinking about that, Atari speculated freely about how we could have managed to get ahold of the game, and accuses us of criminal activities:
'The only possible explanation is that your "review" is based on an illegally downloaded version.'
That isn't just extremely naive, that's insolent. But let's go on:
'At the same time you're ignoring standards that usually apply to product reviews. Because product reviews have to be based on objective and informed analyses.'
And "informed" is probably everything that gives a rating of more than 80%, right? And "objective" begins at 85%? Just for the lawyer who wrote this outrag
Parent
Better start learning German (Score:5, Interesting)
This is surprising. Maybe I'll have to start learning German if I want to get honest game reviews now. I have a feeling the North American game reviewers will probably be a lot more accommodating to Atari's threats.
I recall the same thing happened with Anarchy online. They released the game for sale but then told reviewers to hold off on their reviews because the game wasn't actually 'final'. Sure enough, reviewers didn't do their job and waited around till the Anarchy folks actually felt their game was 'ready'. This all boils down to game companies not wanting to be accountable for their lousy work. Really if you're going to be spending millions and millions of dollars on a game, you should at the very least make sure it's actually worth playing.
It's gonna backfire (Score:3, Insightful)
What a bone-headed thing to do. Like the other thread a bit earlier about google-bombing McCain, trying to suppress information rarely works, and often backfires.
Does Atari Still Exist? (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously, you'd think that they'd use the opportunity to get people involved and improve their releases rather that trying to shut the door on their customers.
wait a minute (Score:5, Funny)
Atari still makes games?
This clear up one thing for me... (Score:5, Funny)
I didn't know Atari was still in business.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's Atari in name only. Infogrames renamed themselves Atari to try to "reinvent" after people wised up to the fact that everyone was used to mediocrity out of them.
DRM (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Granted, I don't approve of online activation of this type at all. But that really is exceedingly ridiculous.
And, hilariously, the only way those sites managed to review the game early, was because Atari turned on the activation servers. Way to use that DRM you paid good money for to prevent early leaks, Atari.
I've seen the game... (Score:3, Interesting)
I can also see where the game is annoying - sometimes you go quite long distances without healing items so you might end up in a battle where you die if anything hurts you just a little bit - and if you don't want to do the battle twenty times over you have to either replay the previous part of the game or skip to the next scene.
Also, it feels badly tested; for example, if during a cutscene the camera is away from your body and passes by items on the ground the game will offer you to pick them up. Also, sometimes the game doesn't make much sense; for example, during the car escape scene there are cars parked in the middle of the street with no fleeing people around that might explain them. Getting to the car is convoluted in itself.
The game does have potential for being unintentionally funny, though. In one cutscene a homing smoking crack in the floor races towards the player. Once, the (heavily injured) player stood on a burning item when the cutscene was triggered; when the camera came back to the player he was already lying on the ground, burning. The game's deadpan delivery of this made the scene exceptionally funny.
Overall, it's a nice game but definitely not great. I can understand why Atari doesn't get rave reviews although I do think 3/10 is a bit low. I'd place it more around a 6.
Re:Hard to say. (Score:5, Insightful)
> but none of the sites mentioned recieved official review copies of Alone In The Dark, which means they're all pirated
You lie.
And your logic is super fail.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hard to say. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Hard to say. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:The 'incomplete code' thing (Score:5, Funny)
These sites probably did base their reviews on incomplete code, and its probably the same thing being shipped to stores on CDs right now.
Parent
Re:The 'incomplete code' thing (Score:4, Funny)
Doesn't calling it 'incomplete code' imply that there might some day be a complete version?
No. This is an incomplete sentence and I have absolutely no inclination to finish it at
Parent