Atari threatens to sue reviewer for Alone in the Dark review

[Brother None]

Christ, not again! Piracy is becoming the best excuse for anything these days. OMG, my game is getting bad reviews! That's because it's a pirated version no doubt!

Actually, I believe Atari sooner than 4players.de

It's very simple logic: either 4players.de went out of their way to get a street-date-breaking copy of this game from a store (a store which is breaking its contract with Atari by doing so, note) or 4players.de pirated it. Considering how widely available the game was as a torrent and how narrowly available the game was from stores (i.e. pretty much not at all), a simple equation of "what is the most likely" brings out "they pirated it".

That's not to say Atari's motives are pure or anything. But 4players.de is ridiculous in saying things like " That some magazines can't possibly have used the release version for their test by Atari's logic because their articles were readable a lot more early than our own doesn't seem to bother Atari at all", because - obviously - those sites/mags had legitimately obtained preview copies from Atari.

And let's get one thing straight: you can not review a game with a pirated copy. Both from a journalistic standpoint (pirated copies might well have problems retail copies do not) and from a legal standpoint.

Now here's the deal:
1. 4players.de is turned down for a review copy. Sleazy business, but it's what happens.
2. The game is riding the pirate waves
3. 4players.de then suddenly does come out with a review of the game prior to its street date.

Are we really, really going to pretend Atari jumped to the wrong conclusion here?

Furthermore, 4players.de really doesn't seem the understand the legal implications of this; Atari talking about ad revenue generated is purely done so Atari can show in court that they gave due warning that 4players.de is undertaking the illegal action of illegitimately damaging a person's goods for their own profit.

And unless 4players.de can show a receipt or provide testimony that they did not in fact review a pirated copy, then Atari has a case.

The PR side of it is obviously different, because everyone is just going to trip all over this screaming "evil publishers!" And the funny thing is those people are right too, Atari is being a mean ol' bitch. But with the law on its side.

 

[GeneralSamov]

The question is though, can 4players really be such noobs?

 

[RK47]

So how's the rating in other game sites anyway?

 

[Hümmelgümpf]

68 at Metacritic.

 

[Trash]

There ar eplenty of stores around that sell games before the streetdate. I know one in Haarlem that takes pride in always having a new games 2 to 5 days before the official street date. I got Mass Effect about a few days earlier because I happened to walk by the shop in evening because I was having some beers with friends.

They actually opened the shop and called their regular customers because they got both mass effect and the lastest guitar hero early. It was funny to see a cue appearing from nothing waiting for the games to arrive in an otherwise dark and silent street.

So I do think that a gamesite with some contacts can easily get a legitimate review copy early. No matter what, Atari is just reacting butthurt and childish.

 

[Nightjed]

Are we really, really going to pretend Atari jumped to the wrong conclusion here?

Riiiight, so... Guilty until proven otherwise eh ?, you are a Bush lover aren't you ?, do you support the current DRM idea of "the customer is a pirate until proven otherwise ... every single time he runs the game ... and several while he is running it ... and we call home to recheck every 10 days ...and gather private info just in case... and if he reinstalls the game 3 times force him to pay again since there is no way a legal customer is smart enough to know what reinstall means" ?

it doesnt matter how "probable" it was, they threated them without any proof whatsoever, they are supposed to be a company with a legal department not a bunch of kiddies.

 

[Lumpy]

Besides, I'd rather have reviewers using pirated copies than publishers choosing the pre-release reviewers themselves.

 

[Ivy Mike]

<snip>

Is this a joke or are you really that thick? If you actually read what BN wrote you'll notice that sound logic is weighing heavily in Atari's favour unless the magic market provided them with some means of acquiring a copy before street date, yet he does in no way claim that Atari are some benevolent force of good. Way to go building a straw man out of thin air - you only missed to call him out as a nazi as well.

The law does support probable conclusions and that's probably what Atari is aiming at. Does that mean that Atari get's a clean slate? No, but neither does 4players.de. That's what BN was saying.

 

[Jasede]

Just before you keep saying dumb stuff, it's perfectly normal for some stores in Germany to sell a game days before release, especially to video game magazine editors. It's nothing out of the ordinary. Why you'd defend Atari for their insulting claims is beyond me, but all right, you go, guys. I know enough about German law to tell BN that no, they do not have the law on their side.

 

[aron searle]

Yea, i'm sure they just love wasting money on law suits they have no hope of winning.

 

[MetalCraze]

BN seems to forget that Atari sued two other magazines as well.
god damn it! those fucking pirates are everywhere

 

[Jasede]

Yea, i'm sure they just love wasting money on law suits they have no hope of winning.

Yes, they seem to, and your remark is ignorant - even just reading the lawyer's writ it is apparent that he's rather incompetent. As was already remarked multiple times in follow-up interviews and articles, the chances of this case going through are tiny due to lack of any legal basis of any sort in German law. Maybe Atari thinks they can pull this shit in the US, but they definitely can't here.

 

[thesheeep]

It's very simple logic: either 4players.de went out of their way to get a street-date-breaking copy of this game from a store (a store which is breaking its contract with Atari by doing so, note) or 4players.de pirated it. Considering how widely available the game was as a torrent and how narrowly available the game was from stores (i.e. pretty much not at all), a simple equation of "what is the most likely" brings out "they pirated it".

You don't really believe that, do you? Sorry, but thats just plain stupid.
A renowned online magazine reviewing from a pirated copy?
Wtf, seriously?

Germany != Russia, you know...
And even there I don't know if magazines would do such things o.O

And if they tested before release date? So what? Not their fault, they got their game at a store -> the store's fault.

 

[Armacalypse]

Any reviewer who is willing to pirate a game in order to bring the truth to the consumers before release is a good journalist in my book.

Ofcourse, if you buy a game without reading a review you are stupid. But there are stupid people out there, and it's good that someone is disrupting Atari's hype fueled sales, and discouraging such behavior.

 

[MetalCraze]

And if they tested before release date? So what? Not their fault, they got their game at a store -> the store's fault.

what? it's nobody's fault. Atari receives their money in the end anyway.

 

[Nightjed]

Ofcourse, if you buy a game without reading a review you are stupid. But there are stupid people out there, and it's good that someone is disrupting Atari's hype fueled sales, and discouraging such behavior.

might have been true at some point, but with today quality of reviews you are better off taking advice from rodents than from a game reviewer

 

[Armacalypse]

Ofcourse, if you buy a game without reading a review you are stupid. But there are stupid people out there, and it's good that someone is disrupting Atari's hype fueled sales, and discouraging such behavior.

might have been true at some point, but with today quality of reviews you are better off taking advice from rodents than from a game reviewer

Yeah, you are most definately right. I read several reviews before I buy my games, and I have been fooled by the reviewers to buy the shitty crap that is Final Fantasy 12.
Nowadays I mostly read and ask opinions on forums before I buy games. But I also read reviews for opinions on the really important things like -- in example the case of AitD -- controls.

 

[Nightjed]

Nowadays I mostly read and ask opinions on forums before I buy games. But I also read reviews for opinions on the really important things like -- in example the case of AitD -- controls.

Forums work but you need to find one without fanboys (not as easy as it sounds) and wait a few months for the "OMG THE GRAPHICS!!!!" drug to die, or you can do what this blogger does and buy games a few years later from the bargain bin and then argue for a few hundred lines if it was really worth your 5 bucks

 

[thesheeep]

And if they tested before release date? So what? Not their fault, they got their game at a store -> the store's fault.

what? it's nobody's fault. Atari receives their money in the end anyway.

That's another way to look at it

 

[Brother None]

BN seems to forget that Atari sued two other magazines as well.
god damn it! those fucking pirates are everywhere

No they didn't. They threatened 'em, as no piracy was involved.

Which, of course, goes to show Atari's base motive here is bullying negative media. But I never said otherwise.

And if they tested before release date? So what? Not their fault, they got their game at a store -> the store's fault.

Uh-huh. 's what I said.

Is this a joke or are you really that thick? If you actually read what BN wrote you'll notice that sound logic is weighing heavily in Atari's favour unless the magic market provided them with some means of acquiring a copy before street date, yet he does in no way claim that Atari are some benevolent force of good. Way to go building a straw man out of thin air - you only missed to call him out as a nazi as well.

The law does support probable conclusions and that's probably what Atari is aiming at. Does that mean that Atari get's a clean slate? No, but neither does 4players.de. That's what BN was saying.

Yes, plus one clear thing everyone seems to be missing: if they made a purchase, they have a receipt. So where is it? They can only incriminate themselves by not producing it. To any neutral observer, 4players.de shouting in mild panic to Atari "you n00b, there are stores that sell before street date" just sounds like they're throwing up smoke.

Jasede: they don't even have to sue in Germany, they can sue in the UK which his stricter intellectual property laws. But that said: I though Germany was pretty strict on IP laws?

(that's not to say I think Atari has a particularly good case or anything, depending on how it lands, they'll probably drop it due to the negative PR, which they should've seen coming miles away)

 

[Kraszu]

Nowadays I mostly read and ask opinions on forums before I buy games. But I also read reviews for opinions on the really important things like -- in example the case of AitD -- controls.

Forums work but you need to find one without fanboys (not as easy as it sounds) and wait a few months for the "OMG THE GRAPHICS!!!!" drug to die, or you can do what this blogger does and buy games a few years later from the bargain bin and then argue for a few hundred lines if it was really worth your 5 bucks

Don't forget to block Poles from visiting your site also.

 

[Jedi_Learner]

Ofcourse, if you buy a game without reading a review you are stupid.

I bought Eschalon: Book I without reading a review. Looking forward to Book II. And I'll definately be buying Age of Decadence after a short run on the demo without reading a review. Does that make me stupid?

 

[Armacalypse]

Ofcourse, if you buy a game without reading a review you are stupid.

I bought Eschalon: Book I without reading a review. Looking forward to Book II. And I'll definately be buying Age of Decadence after a short run on the demo without reading a review. Does that make me stupid?

What I really meant what that you are stupid if you don't read/hear the opinion of someone who doesn't work at the company who made/published the game.

Buying a game at release without knowing anyone's opinion about it is stupid, unless you really trust the developer.
I mean if you bought Alone in the Dark at release you are really stupid.

 

[Jasede]

You can usually tell if you'll enjoy a game or not just by looking at what information the developer provides as long as you don't believe what you're told.

BN, yes we are strict on copyright things. We're also strict on freedom of press and something like "you pirated the game because the review was there before the game was out officially" will not hold up in a German court because it's a very easy thing for the defending lawyer to prove that reviewing games like that is, in fact, common. If in doubt they can just ask the merchant the magazine bought the game from anyway. The real bummer is the other part of Atari's claims - that the review wasn't objective or well-informed - merely because they didn't like the result and guessed it was the review of a pirated copy. Clearly it was Atari who is not very well informed, or at the very least, their lawyer.

 

[thesheeep]

(that's not to say I think Atari has a particularly good case or anything, depending on how it lands, they'll probably drop it due to the negative PR, which they should've seen coming miles away)

Bored lawyer syndrome, I guess...