Atari Sues Websites Over Pre-Release Reviews Of Games
from the what's-illegal-here? dept
Slashdot points us to the news that Atari has started suing various websites that posted reviews of new games prior to the release date of the games. The reviews are negative, but the real problem, according to Atari, is that there was a press embargo on reviewing the games, and if someone has a copy of the game prior to the embargo and hasn't agreed to the embargo, then it's clear that they pirated the game. At least one site has explained that it purchased the game legally from a retail source who mistakenly sold the game before the release date -- which would suggest the problem is with the retailer, not the reviewer. No matter what, the whole thing seems ridiculous. Suing those who review your games (even if the reviews are not good or if the reviews come out early) is a sure way to make sure many sites refuse to review anything you do again.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: pre-release, reviews, takedowns, video games
Companies: atari
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The illegal part
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Embargoes are gentlemen's agreements, not contracts
The publisher should simply not invite them to a another pre-launch.
Whilst they can sue them (as they could for wearing a loud shirt in a built up area), that doesn't make the contract valid.
Reviewers cannot alienate themselves from their freedom of speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, it will make sure these review sites rape your product for every niggling thing they like out of pure spite. You have to culture a positive relationship with the blogsphere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real problem with this game
Maybe it gets better, but I'll probably never find out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who!?!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't think you guys paid attention....
It is, without question, however, a dumb move on Atari's part to (a) try and have a media embargo on their game, and; (b) sue someone who isn't part of the media embargo for not following the media embargo.
Maybe they are going for the Streisand effect....?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't think you guys paid attention....
Maybe, but it worked backwards for me. I played the original AitD and was thinking about picking this one up but now I don't think I'll even download the demo (if there is on on the 360)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's an idea for Atari
Step 1. Make Terrible Game
Step 2. Remember your prime with the 2600 and sigh.
Step 3. Sue because your game sucks
Step 4. Profit.
I think I'm ready to be CEO of a Video Game company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hate crying over negative reviews. I've played some fantastic games, that I've seen reviewed 'bad'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh?!?
so they go to court, make their case, the reviewer shows the legitimate copy of the game with receipt, Atari loses, the reviewer countersues with wrongful lawsuit, Atari pays for the lawsuit cost, Atari still have crappy review of the game AND crappy reputation of being petty and immature....
and no one at Atari can see the outcome?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From Atari's point of view??
----------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------- --
Atari has been around for a long time, they've done this a time or two. Any pre-release media previews or demos (hands-on or not) would have been accompanied by an NDA (non-disclosure agreement). This is a contract and violation of the agreement is subject to prosecution.
Even if not specifically under an NDA, the independent review site, regardless of how they acquired the software, had to know the game at issue was not yet released for public retail. If they were not, then they don't do a very good job at what they do. If they were, as they should have been, then are they not obligated at some level, as responsible journalist, to inform Atari of problems with their supplier chain? Who am I kidding, there is no responsibility in journalism anymore. Oh...different rant..sorry. No, instead they did what you or I would probably do "Got it first!!". Ok, it happens, but Atari was denied this information.
If, as the site claims, they acquired the software thru legal and public means, then Atari has the right and obligation to find out where and who their supplier problems are. You can not deny that media types are quick to protect the anonymity of their sources, in which case Atari has little choice but to sue in order to discover where the problems are.
If, on the other hand, the site acquired the software on sly, be it piracy or some under-the-table or other type of deal, then clearly the site in question is in the wrong, and again Atari is obligated to protect its interests and uncover the wrongdoing.
Clearly these are but a couple of points of many from Atari's point of view. Add to that the fact that a premature early negative "official review", be it true or not, will taint the title, potentially skew future review opinions, and kill sales, very likely costing Atari any chance of at lest recouping development costs from release week sales.
Atari was put in a situation with few, if any, other options.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: From Atari's point of view??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: From Atari's point of view??
Atari has been around for a long time, they've done this a time or two. Any pre-release media previews or demos (hands-on or not) would have been accompanied by an NDA (non-disclosure agreement). This is a contract and violation of the agreement is subject to prosecution.
1) NDA and their legality has been discussed on TD before, look it up, I'm not bothering with repeating it
2) even when an NDA has legality, it's only if you sign it/agree to it. Sending an NDA along with a game (or CD or DVD) does not fulfill that condition at all
Even if not specifically under an NDA, the independent review site, regardless of how they acquired the software, had to know the game at issue was not yet released for public retail. If they were not, then they don't do a very good job at what they do. If they were, as they should have been, then are they not obligated at some level, as responsible journalist, to inform Atari of problems with their supplier chain? Who am I kidding, there is no responsibility in journalism anymore. Oh...different rant..sorry. No, instead they did what you or I would probably do "Got it first!!". Ok, it happens, but Atari was denied this information.
Short answer: NO.
This journalistic responsibility you refer to is, or has historically been, to the public and/or society. Why would any journalist, no matter how responsible, feel or be obligated on any level to inform a private, commercial company that a retail store screwed up by selling their game early? Why should they be obliged on any level to help police Atari's supply chain?
If, as the site claims, they acquired the software thru legal and public means, then Atari has the right and obligation to find out where and who their supplier problems are.
Sure, however the reviewer has no obligation whatsoever to help Atari with this.
Atari was put in a situation with few, if any, other options.
One option would, obviously, be to make games that suck less.
Furthermore, if their real concern was review sites getting their hands on illegal/pirated copies, shouldn't they equally go after reviews for games that got positive pre-release reviews?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Atari Shot Down
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Problem solved & ATARI goes broke.
Good For Them! "Asshats"!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
of course not. Why would they take this upon themselves to right such an inconsequential wrong to which they are not a party. No one seems to be saying that an NDA was violated here, the only point atari seems to be making is that if someone reviewed it they must have pirated it.
Further:
"Within an hour [after posting], Atari called to have the review pulled off, claiming there was an embargo till Friday," Bergervoet said in a comment to Shacknews. "Our review copy was sent directly to us by Atari and [was] not a pirated copy. They explicitly told [Gamer.nl] that they only let high scoring reviews break the post-release embargo date."
Atari really should go screw. Also, buy a new nose to replace the one they are furiously chewing off to spite their face.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]