Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Atari Tries To Supress Bad Reviews, Claims Piracy

Posted by kdawson on 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."

35 of 275 comments (clear)

  1. Hmm.... by ArIck · · Score: 4, 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.

    1. Re:Hmm.... by Mascot · · Score: 4, 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.

    2. Re:Hmm.... by ArIck · · Score: 4, 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"

    3. Re:Hmm.... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    4. Re:Hmm.... by schon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Atari has every right in the world to not only sue these guys, but put them out of business Yes, because god forbid anyone should have the right to freedom of speech, right?
    5. Re:Hmm.... by dascritch · · 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/
      The Ankama company games just put money into this tv, but I doubt they will do the Marcus incident again.

      --
      (Sorry my bad French) Je fais parler les Guignols de l'Info. Le pied, quoi.
    6. Re:Hmm.... by Arimus · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      --- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
    7. Re:Hmm.... by Anonymous Coward · · 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).

    8. Re:Hmm.... by phoenixwade · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What a pathetic joke. Why should anyone take the reviews of a site that is obviously willing to break the law to do what it wants. I can't believe there are actually people defending the review site. "Oh, this is only cause they said it sucked".


      God I love Slashdot's fluid moral code.

      Break the LAW how, pray tell?

      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.

      --
      A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
    9. Re:Hmm.... by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Don't you just LOVE the translated text "What comes next? 4P bangs frogs in office ignite? Wives of editors with footballs bewerfen?" What are those scummy Atari people threatening to do to those poor editors wives with them soccer balls?


      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

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    10. Re:Hmm.... by Opportunist · · Score: 3, 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...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re:Hmm.... by spoco2 · · Score: 4, 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.

    12. Re:Hmm.... by Cruciform · · 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.

    13. Re:Hmm.... by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I RTFA too(I know,but I got bored.) and from what I understood,while the German press got a prerelease copy,many of the others got theirs from Atari themselves who are now saying "that by accepting this you agree not to publish anything but good reviews before X date." I don't see how this would hold up in court in either case. It seems like they could go after the retailer,but not the magazine which is doing an honest commentary and what they were sold by the retailer. And I certainly don't see how the ones that were given it by Atari themselves could be shut down.


      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

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  2. "all publicity is good publicity"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... once again. Before I read this I didn't know about "Alone in the Dark". I guess their strategy worked

  3. From the TFA - Gamer.no says game bought legally by denzacar · · Score: 5, Informative

    Kotaku article has an update:

    Gamer.no was the second publication in the world to publish a review, and we also gave it 3 out of 10. The review was based on a retail copy obtained from a store on Tuesday this week. Atari contacted us just minutes after it was published, claiming that our review is probably based on a preview or pirated copy, and requested it to be removed. We never removed it, of course.
    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  4. Just take it by kiehlster · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So I guess no one has learned from the wise ways of Penny Arcade's ad campaign.

    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.

    1. Re:Just take it by Ford+Prefect · · 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 mod for Half-Life 2:

      lighting was fucking shit, its just like these other fucking mappers making maps extremely fucking dark

      Despite the website that oozes more angst and self-hatred than an emo concert at an emo convention, this is worth downloading.

      Was anybody else annoyed by those frequent messages? That pompous, cliche tone gave the sense that a smarmy Brit with two dictionaries, three encylopedias and a latin textbook shoved up his ******* was faxing you orders.

      i made a box map with a giant penis that has better lighting that this shit

      Besides, the content of the website is overly presumptuous, overloaded with vague metaphors, random big words and allusions to irrelevant Greek myths, as if they were talking about anything but a second-rate Half-Life 2 mod.

      Other people 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.

      --
      Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
  5. Re:Hard to say. by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  6. When will they learn? by TibbonZero · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When will these gaming companies (and others) learn that this isn't the 80's anymore. This news spreads like wildfire and makes them look really bad. Its a much better idea to try to promote positive news instead of repressing and pretty obviously trying to force a lack of journalistic integrity.

    --
    Tibbon
    tibbon.com
  7. 68% is unfavourable? by damburger · · 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.

    --
    If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    1. Re:68% is unfavourable? by Opportunist · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  8. Re:The 'incomplete code' thing by ximenes · · 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.

  9. Pirated == different? by neokushan · · Score: 3, 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?

    --
    +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
    1. Re:Pirated == different? by xaxa · · Score: 3, 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?

      My version of Sim City would have a 'disaster' every 2 minutes if you didn't correctly answere the copy protection question (I think it was the "second word from line five, page three of the manual" type protection).
  10. After you stopped laughing about the translation by GroeFaZ · · Score: 5, Informative

    The details of the story are:

    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.

    --
    The grass is always greener on the other side of the light cone.
  11. Better start learning German by Cathoderoytube · · 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.

    --
    I have nothing compelling to say
  12. wait a minute by DreadfulGrape · · Score: 4, Funny

    Atari still makes games?

    --
    sig has been sent away for a few small repairs...
  13. Re:After you stopped laughing about the translatio by schnipschnap · · 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

  14. This clear up one thing for me... by haaz · · Score: 4, Funny

    I didn't know Atari was still in business.

    --
    -- haaz.
  15. DRM by Xian97 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I don't care if the reviews were giving it a perfect score, I was giving this one a pass anyway. It has even more restrictive install limits than Mass Effect - you can only install it on a single PC at a time so I can't have it on my desktop and laptop for example. I don't mind the online activation, but I refuse to buy any software that limits the number of installations. http://www.aitdunlock.com/

  16. Re:Hard to say. by Fred_A · · Score: 4, Funny

    Arr, wait: I actually bought those games. You know, in shops. With money. Maybe the review sites did the same thing? Is this even legal ?
    --

    May contain traces of nut.
    Made from the freshest electrons.
  17. Re:Hard to say. by johannesg · · Score: 4, Funny

    Arr, wait: I actually bought those games. You know, in shops. With money. Maybe the review sites did the same thing? Is this even legal ? Well, I downloaded the money from the pirate bay, and printed it on a color laser I stole from the office, so I reckon I'm still ok with the pirate code...

  18. Troll Alert by jamrock · · Score: 3, Insightful
    How nice. More gems from the troll:

    Why should anyone take the reviews of a site that is obviously willing to break the law to do what it wants. I can't believe there are actually people defending the review site.
    Hoo boy. Right now it's Atari's word against that of the various sites. No facts have been established, but it's "obvious" to you that the sites are willing to "break the law."

    wait, so you're saying a copy designated as being for review came from Atari, and then Atari sued them for using it, saying it was pirated?
    Let me get this straight: in you first post you rendered judgement that the sites were "obviously willing to break the law", then in your second post you're asking what happened? I don't know about where you come from, but in this universe the usual order of inquiry is to find out what happened, then come to a conclusion. What's obvious to me from your second comment is that you haven't even read the fucking articles , but you're more than willing to call this entire discussion "a pathetic joke", and bitch about "Slashdot's fluid moral code". Don't tell me that you just read the summary and made up your mind that the sites are guilty of piracy. Great. Fucking Miss Cleo is back trolling Slashdot. The pathetic joke is that your neck-farts were modded "Insightful".
  19. Re:The 'incomplete code' thing by mgblst · · Score: 3, 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