PDA

View Full Version : Atari sues site because low review score in Alone in the dark


Pages : [1] 2

Hari Seldon
06-21-08, 02:18 PM
Incredibe....
Just draws more attention that their game is crappy...
http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/53249

ralinn
06-21-08, 02:40 PM
Or maybe it's not crappy and that's why they're pissed off...

|MaguS|
06-21-08, 03:27 PM
Or maybe read the article and see that they are suing because they claim the review was done on a pirated copy of the game since they never provided the reviewer a copy to review (considering the review was done prior to the games release).

SH64
06-21-08, 03:27 PM
Or maybe it's not crappy and that's why they're pissed off...
Agr33d.

JigenD
06-21-08, 03:30 PM
I hope this game doesn't 3/10 suck in reality. :o

If Atari really is trying to squelch early bad reviews (I've heard of this with many other companies as well), that's horrible.

What also sucks is that a lot of media get really bitchy and won't review a game, or won't give good reviews if they don't get a nice free media kit with extras. I'm always amazed when some site that people read for game reviews refuses to pay what everyone else does for a game. For example, Blimblim of Gamersyde said this on NeoGAF. He doesn't want to pay for the game.

So basically publishers and games media both suck ****s. Developers and gamers left out in the cold. :(

RAY16
06-21-08, 05:24 PM
Or maybe read the article and see that they are suing because they claim the review was done on a pirated copy of the game since they never provided the reviewer a copy to review (considering the review was done prior to the games release).

Do they have any proof? Retailers often break release dates.

BioHazZarD
06-22-08, 04:37 AM
Lol how can they used a pirated copy when the game hasnt been cracked yet by any of the groups ? I rememeber i read the ordered the game like any one of us would do and got it the next day or so..

Medion
06-22-08, 08:33 AM
Or maybe read the article and see that they are suing because they claim the review was done on a pirated copy of the game since they never provided the reviewer a copy to review (considering the review was done prior to the games release).

Actually, the article states that Atari did provide a review copy to them. However, since they cannot publish a bad review of the game prior to the embargo date (Atari said only good reviews could be released early), they claim to have bought another copy early at a retailer, and reviewed that one.

evox
06-22-08, 09:06 AM
Update: Gamer.nl staffer Erwin Bergervoet has informed Shacknews that Atari also asked the Dutch gaming site to pull its 5/10 review of Alone in the Dark posted Thursday, a day before the game's official European street date.

"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."

|MaguS|
06-22-08, 09:32 AM
So ATARI is becoming the next EIDOS? I bet Phil Harrison is so happy to leave Sony for ATARI now...

(BTW When I read the article it didn't have the update)

RAY16
06-22-08, 11:14 AM
It's sad time we live in when a reviewers opinion is silenced because the company doesn't want the review out until after a few suckers have bought the game on release day as an impulse buy.

pRATTICUS
06-22-08, 11:53 AM
F**k Atari - if they don't want honest reviews, don't send the game out.

What a f**kin joke. Doesn't Freedom of Speech/Press come in here somewhere?

|MaguS|
06-22-08, 11:56 AM
F**k Atari - if they don't want honest reviews, don't send the game out.

What a f**kin joke. Doesn't Freedom of Speech come in here somewhere?

Um no since its a private industry and has nothing to do with your rights at all.

This is going to become more popular when more games get rushed to market. I mean look how few Wii titles get reviewed compared to released.

LycosV
06-22-08, 01:08 PM
Actually, the article states that Atari did provide a review copy to them. However, since they cannot publish a bad review of the game prior to the embargo date (Atari said only good reviews could be released early), they claim to have bought another copy early at a retailer, and reviewed that one.

That defense is unlikely to hold up for them. They no doubt signed some agreement when they got the free copy from Atari. They can't play the free copy early, decide it sucks, then circumvent the agreement by buying another copy and putting up a review. If they didn't want to be bound by the agreement they needed to refuse the free review copy.

Sectus
06-22-08, 01:24 PM
I can't believe some people here are actually defending Atari... do you think it's a good thing big companies are trying to stop reviewers from posting honest reviews? Unfortunately, this is common in the entire game industry. We've got similar examples like Eidos and Gamespot's Kane & Lynch review. Or Ubi Soft and 1up's Assassin's Creed review.

ralinn
06-22-08, 01:26 PM
Why is it honest just because it's so negative?

JigenD
06-22-08, 01:49 PM
Nearly every single publisher enforces dumb crap like this, if not all of them. Don't single out Atari for this. I think some reviewers think they can/should defy Atari because they're on their last legs, they know if Atari cuts them out of the media loop, it won't matter.

Lol how can they used a pirated copy when the game hasnt been cracked yet by any of the groups ? I rememeber i read the ordered the game like any one of us would do and got it the next day or so..

360 version has been pirated for days.

Sectus
06-22-08, 01:50 PM
Why is it honest just because it's so negative?
Why wouldn't it be honest? Are only positive reviews honest?

The point here is that Atari are trying to encourage reviewers to only give the game positive reviews. There's no chance in heck that encourages honesty.

DeusGear
06-22-08, 03:02 PM
Nearly every single publisher enforces dumb crap like this, if not all of them. Don't single out Atari for this. I think some reviewers think they can/should defy Atari because they're on their last legs, they know if Atari cuts them out of the media loop, it won't matter.



360 version has been pirated for days.
I hate atari for their president who wants anti piracy chips on all motherboards blaming piracy for low sales yet when their games are TOTAL ****.

Hari Seldon
06-22-08, 05:03 PM
Or maybe read the article and see that they are suing because they claim the review was done on a pirated copy of the game since they never provided the reviewer a copy to review (considering the review was done prior to the games release).
I did read the article, and in a way, you are right, the topic should have been:
Atari sues sites because low review score in Alone in the dark...

Gamer.nl 5/10, revier sued
4Players 68 % site sued
GameReactor 3/10 site accused of piracy, review pulled from website
Gamer.no 3/10 site claims they were asked to pull review

Crappy or not, I wouldn't buy it ...

ralinn
06-22-08, 05:25 PM
Why wouldn't it be honest? Are only positive reviews honest?

The point here is that Atari are trying to encourage reviewers to only give the game positive reviews. There's no chance in heck that encourages honesty.
Negative reviews = honest
Positive reviews = lies

?

Sectus
06-22-08, 06:09 PM
Negative reviews = honest
Positive reviews = lies

?
I'll just repeat myself... why can't a negative review be honest? There's no logic which states that only positive reviews can be honest.

And if you truly believe that the negative reviews aren't honest... just go try the game. I've tried it myself and it honestly deserves the 3/10 ratings. This is one of the biggest disappointments I've played in my life.

JigenD
06-22-08, 06:11 PM
just go try the game. I've tried it myself and it honestly deserves the 3/10 ratings. This is one of the biggest disappointments I've played in my life.

So you've played the game now? Seriously, post your own impressions please. I still have the game preordered, but I still don't believe the game is really 3/10 bad. I'm tired of reviewers panning a game for stupid reasons. There are so many 9/10 games I'd give a 3/10 today just for being mind numbingly dull and so many 6/10s I'd give a 9/10 to...

nekrosoft13
06-22-08, 06:15 PM
this one one funny thread so far

JigenD
06-22-08, 06:23 PM
See, 3/10 or 2/10 is just silly for the way this game looks, because look at what games average 3/10 :

On PC there's less than 70 games 3/10 or worse EVER.

On 360 :
Yaris (which was free), Bomberman Act Zero, Hour of Victory, Vampire Rain

Just because a game is disappointing doesn't mean the game is a 3/10.

3/10 means offensively bad graphics, completely unplayable gameplay, constant crashing, bugs so bad the game is literally impossible to beat... Hell, 8/10 games have had some of those 'features' before (at least before patches).