Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Just when you thought the world of gaming got better with the latest Jack-Thompson case and stuff, I am once again in awe of the sheer stupidity from some people when it comes to our 2nd favourite hobby.

But let's start at the beginning: There's a german gaming site called "4players" who recently put up a review of "Alone in the Dark" for the XBox 360. It got a 68% score. Well appearantly, this wasn't good enough for Atari. They sued the site (and a few days later 2 other gaming sites in Skandinavia which gave the game a 3/10). The reason for this, so Atari claims, is that said reviewers had to use a pirate copy of the game (which they didn't) since the game wasn't out that day yet. So, said review can't be a real one since they couldn't have used the final game, alotugh they did, because they got it early from their retialer.

So in the end, Atari sued 3 independant gaming sites for giving their new child bad reviews.

Here's the german site
http://www.4players.de/4players.php/kommentar/Spielkultur/1803943/58/index.html

and an english newspost I found
http://xbox360.qj.net/Atari-suing-European-gaming-sites-over-negative-Alone-in-the-Dark-reviews-/pg/49/aid/121368

Some points that I wanted to just put out there because the above poster has some inaccuracies in what he states:

1 - Getting it early from your retailer is still illegal (although for the retailer).

2 - You can get pirated copies of games before the game comes out, if the game was leaked or stolen from the developer while being created. For example this happened to Half Life 2, Counter Strike: Source and Might and Magic V to name a few more popular ones.

3 - The only way you can get a copy of a game (legally) before release date, for review is from the publisher (in this case Atari) and with their permission you may post a review of parts or all of the game only on or after certain dates. If you don't like the dates / constraints they set then you don't have to review the game. For example this happened recently with MGS4 and one of the major review sites in North America. They told sony to stick it and that they would not review MGS4 until release because of the absurd things they were not allowed to comment on like the install time of the game, the fact that one of the cinemas in the game lasts 90 minutes, etc.

So we'll see where this goes. Slander is still slander even if its talking crap about a video game and not a person/company and you can be sued for it. Especially if you don't have written/verbal permission to look at, let a lone review, said game before its legal released to press and/or public. Sometimes trying to be first to review X by any means just isn't a bright idea. But hey the courts will figure this all out and find all the facts, thats what they are paid for right?

A video game is not a legal person and can't be slandered or libelled.

There is no obligation on a buyer of a game not to review it, unless he has entered into a contract with the publisher (for example, a non-disclosure agreement.)

If a retailer sells a copy early that is a problem between him and the distributor and has no bearing on the buyer's use of it.

If this is true, my prediction is that Atari will get peed on by the courts, and in-the-know gamers will hold a grudge against them for time to come.

No matter how much publishers try to hide bad news about a new title, the truth always outs because people buy it and if it stinks they say so, on blogs, on forums and Metacritic and by word of mouth. (The reverse is also true -- a great game gets huge benefit from it.)

It's a shameful thing to try and hide one's bad reviews. It reflects very badly on Atari's honour and business judgement.

Penny Arcade's Tycho has a pretty good take on this story.

The basic point of this kind of affair is that if a game is pants, telling people to stop saying it's pants won't do any good.

Kilkrazy wrote:The basic point of this kind of affair is that if a game is pants, telling people to stop saying it's pants won't do any good.

If you ask me, quite the oposite actually.
Like you already stated, people will hold a grudge and itll be much worse for the company.

I guess one can see where atari is coming from with this, put I dont find it rather smart

Come to think of it, if Atari allege these reviewers used pirate copies, that in itself is a libel.

Appearently they had a nice get together and atari will not take any legal steps. Hardly suprising if you ask me.

From my experience, gamers are collectivley vindictive. If a game like this comes out, and the publisher gets all gakky over bad reviews, especially to the point of suing sites for reviewing it badly, then gamers, as a whole, will shun the game.

This isn't fair on the game or the game designers, but it's a case of the publisher bringing it down on themselves.

Happened with Kayne & Lynch...

BYE