Atari Tries To Supress Bad Reviews, Claims Piracy 275
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."
From the TFA - Gamer.no says game bought legally (Score:5, Informative)
Kotaku article has an update:
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.
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: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"
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?
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: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?
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.
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.
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
DRM (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Does Atari Still Exist? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:68% is unfavourable? (Score:2, Informative)
Did you never read the UK edition of PC Gamer? I haven't looked at it for a few years now, but they regularly gave single-digit scores for games that were so awful there was no other non-violent response possible. They also gave Worms 1 40%, which confused the hell out of everyone...
Re:"all publicity is good publicity"... (Score:2, Informative)
You will want to pirate/buy Alone in the Dark (the first game), though. :)
I loved that game -- it was very creative at the time it was released. The French were quite creative around that time.
Re:They are right, really (Score:1, Informative)
I guess you missed the part of the article where they say they bought the copy from the store, with their own money. See, sometimes stores sell games early, to get all the sales before the 'official' release date. Atari might have an issue with the store, but the only issue they have with the review is that it is bad.
Re:68% is an F (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hmm.... (Score:3, Informative)
Slander is spoken, in print it's libel.