The whole thing is retarded. The fact of the matter is, G3 bought the game legally. If you purchase something legally you can do what you want with it.

See, this is just another reason why I don't like Halo.

*ducks*

:)

It is a tough one. Actually embargos to my understanding are voluntary. BUT by going against them the company will not look favorably on the site/company in the future. They are no NDA (none disclosure agreements) which are more serious deals and require signatures (legally binding I believe).

MS can take it as seriously as they like, never offering support to go gaming giant again. But really their beef will be with the retailer who sold the game when they shouldn't have. MS can be pissed but with no agreement it becomes hazy matter at best. Go Gaming Giant took it down at their request and unless MS issued them information of embargo dates who is to say they even knew an embargo existed.

In the interest of honest I am associated with Go Gaming Giant, but in this matter am unsure of all the facts. I dont know what was said prior to or after by MS. This is what I believe from my understanding. I have seen images of the copy reviewed and it was a legit retail copy.

this sh!t sucks big chuck norris hairy d@ck ..

not suprised. MS is down by 2 tds with 2 minutes left and ps3 has the ball

You know that saying "ignorance of the law is no excuse?"

Just because you aren't aware that rules don't exist doesn't mean you're allowed to break them. It's common sense that a HUGE release like Halo 3: ODST would be embargoed --you should have contacted a Microsoft rep if there was any doubt.

I sympathize with your position, though, and granted it's a very firm stance for Microsoft to take. Best thing you can do now is raise your traffic to the point where Microsoft can't afford to ignore you anymore.

Embargo's are not optional or voluntary. The way it works in most cases is you either receive a very clear email before the game is shipped stating the embargo date or WITH the receipt of the game it states that by accepting the game you agree to not publish any articles until the specified date. You can disagree with the embargo all you want, but the fact is that by accepting the game you're agreeing to their terms and breaking their terms has consequences.

I applaud MS for what they did here (referring to trying to keep everyone's reviews on the same playing field). I'm tired of seeing certain sites get "early privileges" (usually when the developer knows the score is high *cough IGN's GTA4 review *cough) because all it does it hurt the industry as a whole. I like the fact that they kept EVERYONE on the same playing field.

If GGG bought the game legitimately then I agree MS can't necessarily hold you to that embargo. But, I also agree with everyone else in that saying you weren't aware of any type of embargo is a bit naive. You either have to fess up to the fact that you're a poor site because you were unaware of something that's been widely known in the industry in which you represent or you just "coincidentally" happened to post your review before everyone else and played the dumb card as your excuse.

You also would have most likely received an advanced copy of the game. Retailers are not allowed to sell early. This is less about you and more about them. The best thing to have done was respect the embargo date. This is not exclusive to Microsoft, it is done by all publishers. By showing you are able to be trusted it may help you in the future. I know this may be a shock, but it is hard to find mature, responsible, and honorable game sites to share information with.

-Death

Sony would never do such a thing

That sucks but whether GGG knew about the embargo or not, the damage is done.

there was no reason to pull the review by request of someone at MS that doesn't know basic punctuation and/or grammar. if those are quotes from MS then it wasn't a lawyer that was contacting GGG and just some lackey that was using his title to bully an independent site.

Its a pathetic tactic by a POS company and the stupidity of whoever contacted GGG, on MS's behalf, makes me proud not to own a POS Xbox! and seriously is making reconsider purchasing one EVER again!

As a video game journalist, I think you're held to a degree of responsibility. I've never visited Go Gaming Giant so I don't know if this is an accredited gaming site/blog or another fanboy site. Regardless releasing a review prior to embargo date is a no brainier unless you have specific clearance from the publisher, which isn't the case here. Weigh your options; be known as the site that broke embargo and damage relationships with MS and potentially other publishers or bask in your 5 minutes of shame on N4G.

Embargos, like I've said to many others, are not binding at all unless you SIGN a contract or commit to a VERBAL agreement. Even then, there is absolutely no legal action anyone can take against a website that breaks embargo except to try and sue for pirating a game, which they absolutely could not do because the copy was perfectly legit.

At the same time, it was rather unwittingly naive of G3 to go ahead and put up the review. People forget that writers have these things called LIVES. A GROUP didn't work on the ODST review, a trusted reviewer did. As a result, when it was done, it was proofed and put up ASAP. Who wouldn't take the opportunity to be the first? It's a competative world in the gaming industry. That being the case, when they contacted Matt at who knows when in the afternoon, the mostly eastern USA-based staff was uhhh at work and school, maybe?

Microsoft's response was both ham-handed and a crucifixion of sorts. Used to teach a lesson to any site that isn't Gamespot or IGN that ever breaks embargo, whether knowing or not. The message is they ALWAYS have an embargo. And if you didn't know, now you know. Screw you MS.

So you do your 5 minutes in the penalty box and I'm sure all will be forgiven eventually. You guys better not break embargo on Modern Warfare 2 though....I'm calling dibs right now:)

very intresting stuff. i donno what i wud have done in such a situation

You'd think they would have sent a review guide and embargo information with their email, just to make sure GGG was indeed aware.

It seems clear that neither Microsoft nor GGG are under contractual obligation here and as far we know Microsoft has not gone after GGG with legal charges. Since the reviewer showed that he had a legit copy and he got it from a reseller who shipped it early he's not at fault for having the game and since it wasn't a review copy he was, to my understanding, legally free to publish the review before the embargo. But a gaming publication like GGG should not have been surprised that there was an embargo and, with a little research, should have been able to figure out that breaking the embargo would have negative consequences with Microsoft.

Microsoft, in tern has every bit as much right to decide not to have a relationship with GGG in the near future.

This isn't a story about legalities, it's a story of integrity, and yes, a bit. of miscommunication and misunderstanding