Atari & Freedom of Press

[StefanS]

via Kotaku

They gave it 3/10. Ouch. However, they then promptly pulled the review, and accusations of shady dealings were levelled against the site by Atari, who said that press copies had only been sent out the day before (the review has since been reinstated, and the 3/10 stands). Odd, seeing as many other European publications also had reviews go live this week, but whatever. 3. German site 4Players reviews the game. Gives it 68%. Then is threatened with legal action by Atari because, yes, Atari had no idea how the site got a copy of the game.

4Players' EIC Jörg Luibl says that Atari's lawyers have accused them of "breaking the law and violating the rights of their client (Atari)", all because 4Players reviewed the game prior to its release, but without using a copy sent to them by Atari. 4Players maintain that, like many other games not sent to them by publishers, they secured a copy via a "trusted dealer". Which could well just be a firendly local GAME manager cracking open his shipment of the game before the street date, it could be point #1 (the leaked copies of the game), who knows.

Apparently Atari has been suing publications across Europe for using a "questionable source" to review the game early. So far the only outlets sued were the ones that have issued bad scores, it seems.

The Germany site for 4players which already saw Atari ads pulled prior to the review after an unflattering preview was sued for 50.000 EUR compensation.

 

[-tkf-]

via Kotaku


Apparently Atari has been suing publications across Europe for using a "questionable source" to review the game early. So far the only outlets sued were the ones that have issued bad scores, it seems.

The Germany site for 4players which already saw Atari ads pulled prior to the review after an unflattering preview was sued for 50.000 EUR compensation.

The Kotaku story was updated with this from norway:

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.

 

[assen]

Without trying to defend ATARI and what they're accused to have done...

There was a recent case where 4players wrote a bad review about a server-based game, with parts of it panning later stages of the game - while the server logs revealed that the reviewer barely spent an hour with the game. When the developer called him on it, the reviewer responded with a generic "OMG HALP they are repressing the freedom of speech!!1`1`!", without trying to refute the accusation in any way.

Some of the reviewers out there really are assholes.

 

[AzBat]

Yeah, I've seen a few of them in US print magazines too.

Tommy McClain

 

[Xalion]

It is an interesting question. These sites hardly seem to have had copies long enough to do a thorough or for that matter, even a poor review. By the time you get through writing, editing, and publishing an article less than 1 day after companies get press release copies and then to have people publishing reviews who shouldn't even have the game - it does seem like the reviewers in question are at very least doing a poor job. I can see how Atari might be sensitive to this as these reviews do directly impact their bottom line. If it were private citizens and not "the press" doing this, I can see libel suits happening. I don't know if they would win or not, but the suits I could see.

On the other hand, this ends up hurting Atari more than helping. In the current political environment, there really isn't a stronger battle cry than "keep free press!". Our lives revolve around information, and we want that information as untainted by corporate hands as it can be. Now a you will get people who fight to protect a couple of reviews that would probably have been waived off as poorly done before.

So where do you balance the press's professional responsibility to actually do things in a reasonable manner with our need for unmoderated information? I think it is an interesting question.

 

[DJ12]

Maybe this is why Phil Harrison has held back the PS3 version (Not confirming any release date for it) of the game because he knows it's a stinker.

 

[-tkf-]

It is an interesting question. These sites hardly seem to have had copies long enough to do a thorough or for that matter, even a poor review. By the time you get through writing, editing, and publishing an article less than 1 day after companies get press release copies and then to have people publishing reviews who shouldn't even have the game - it does seem like the reviewers in question are at very least doing a poor job. I can see how Atari might be sensitive to this as these reviews do directly impact their bottom line. If it were private citizens and not "the press" doing this, I can see libel suits happening. I don't know if they would win or not, but the suits I could see.

On the other hand, this ends up hurting Atari more than helping. In the current political environment, there really isn't a stronger battle cry than "keep free press!". Our lives revolve around information, and we want that information as untainted by corporate hands as it can be. Now a you will get people who fight to protect a couple of reviews that would probably have been waived off as poorly done before.

So where do you balance the press's professional responsibility to actually do things in a reasonable manner with our need for unmoderated information? I think it is an interesting question.

There is no question that many reviews are worth less than the bytes they take up on the web.
Thats up to the "consumer" to judge and find out not those that make or publish the game. Aparently Atari pushed one of the sites to hold back the review until it was out, that can only be to get better sales than could be expected with bad reviews out before the actual game.

What confuses me the most is a 7/10 review on Eurogamer and these "this sucks" reviews that are popping up giving it 3/10.

 

[Zaphod]

What confuses me the most is a 7/10 review on Eurogamer and these "this sucks" reviews that are popping up giving it 3/10.

The difference seems to me like they mention pretty much the same things, yet: "This game has some redeeming qualities, but it's flaws overshadow them and turn it into an exercise in frustration." vs. "This game has some severe flaws that make it frustrating to play at times but its redeeming qualities still make it worthwhile."

I.e. if you like the genre and can tolerate bad control schemes, then it is a "7"; otherwise its a "3".

 

[dobwal]

Atari has no real grounds to stand on.

If a game reviewer was given a retail copy by a retailer, Atari has no grounds to sue due to the fact that their problem would then lie with the retailer and not the review site.

Even, if a game reviewer obtain a copy from a source that distributing illegally then Atari's problem lies with the distributor as the use of the copyrighted material for review, criticism and news falls under "fair use" or "fair dealing" laws in many countries.

 

[-tkf-]

Atari has no real grounds to stand on.

If a game reviewer was given a retail copy by a retailer, Atari has no grounds to sue due to the fact that their problem would then lie with the retailer and not the review site.

Even, if a game reviewer obtain a copy from a source that distributing illegally then Atari's problem lies with the distributor as the use of the copyrighted material for review, criticism and news falls under "fair use" or "fair dealing" laws in many countries.

It actually reads as if Atari thought the reviews were based on Pirated versions

 

[dobwal]

It actually reads as if Atari thought the reviews were based on Pirated versions

Doesn't matter the fault lies with the pirater not with the review site.

If you gave me a copy of a game you bought with the knowledge that I would just used it to play without paying then you are guilty of illegal distribution and and circumventing the copyrights of the game publishers.

But if you gave me a copy of a game you bought and I used it to simply critically review the game as news then you're nor I are guilty of anything because I'm using the game under "fair use" or "fair play".

Now in the case of a pirater when he is distributing the game for people to play for free then he is guilty of illegally distributing the game but in the cases of where he distributes to the game to licensed users or to people using it under the fair use clause its legal.

 

[StefanS]

It actually reads as if Atari thought the reviews were based on Pirated versions

yeah, but Atari would have a very hard time trying to prove that in a civil law suit. It sounds very much like an empty threat.

Anyway, there's something really fishy going on here. Atari maintains that they've only sent the review copies out on June 17th, there earliest reviews went up on June 18th (as did the Eurogamer review BTW). They seem to claim that the poor reviews based on non-review versions are illegal and could affect the potential sales of their game. I think they'd have a hard time even establishing a basis to sue here (illegal reviews?) and I am not even talking about proving causation.
That's basically creating a PR disaster without any possible positive gains from it. TBH, at the very least it's a bad PR decision.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

What's Phil Harrison's relation in all this?

 

[Cornsnake]

He's used to cleaning up someone else mess. Maybe Atari will try the same.

 

[RobertR1]

What's Phil Harrison's relation in all this?

Popular name. Easiest to blame.

 

[RobertR1]

Maybe this is why Phil Harrison has held back the PS3 version (Not confirming any release date for it) of the game because he knows it's a stinker.

Can you type out the logic used to arrive at this conclusion? I'd love to hear it.

 

[-tkf-]

Atari arent making things easy for themselves:

https://www.aitdunlock.com/

 

[Silent]

These tactics they seem to apply to localized sites for a while now. Write a couple of reviews that aren’t favorable and suddenly you will have a lot of difficulties trying to secure review material. I’ve stopped writing a couple of years ago (2005) but I know that the site that I’ve worked for had these difficulties.

It even went so far that promised material for contests where never delivered and off course we had a lot of angry price winners. And you couldn't blame them.

It seems they have changed to new tactics to influence the way reviews are written.

 

[BoardBonobo]

Atari lost the gamig plot quite a while back IMHO. If they've conjoined the only franchise they have left then why? They used to make some of the best games out there, those that had staying power.