What if the early reviews do not have access to the game's online features and are unable to talk about a significant alteration to online trading?
But hey, at least we'll get an entertaining lawyer-speak writeup trying to quantify the "irreparable" damage.
I love this argument because the only way it flies is if people were forced to buy games at launch and not a single minute after that.
I doubt 6 million people watch or read reviews, it's not about being on the fence, you should know what you're buying regardless. Don't defend bad practice, I love Pokémon but they did not do right by their fans marketing wise. Let's not also forget that most reviewers didn't get a copy day 1 so that isn't the best argument either way.
Exactly, the word "irreparable injury" sounds more serious than it is but it doesn't really mean "it has cost us a lot of millions", it means what literally means "A damage that cannot be solved." And it is true because once a leak is on the internet you cannot make it disappear.
These are real people who could be sued into oblivion by a company with tons of money. I don't think that's right.
The internet backlash was from an E3 interview. If anything I think the leaks made some people less angry.
Nah, more like they will cut down the number of leakers.
The thing is, "scaring" leakers doesn't actually work in practice. Nobody leaks with the expectation that they'll get caught.
If you want to play with platitudes: "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." I don't see how they're at all even, though. Potentially have your livelihood ruined because you leaked information in a video game that sold millions of copies. I just don't see why you'd take the side of a company over individuals. I don't think the leaks are a good idea, either, but they don't deserve to be financially destroyed over it.
