It appears that a gaming site came across some corporate information from Red Dead Redemption 2 and decided to publish a piece on it earlier this year…and got into a world of trouble. And now they’re paying for it — literally.
Videos by ComicBook.com
A site by the name of Trusted Reviews has issued a statement today, apologizing for a leak for the hit sequel that went out earlier this year. And to follow up, the company has donated “over £1 million to charities chosen by Take-Two Games.”
So what happened? Trusted Reviews published a post explaining the matter. “On February 6, 2018, we published an article that was sourced from a confidential corporate document,” it explained in the post. “We should have known this information was confidential and should not have published it. We unreservedly apologise to Take-Two Games and we have undertaken not to repeat such actions again.”
The original article appears to have been taken down (possibly due to legal threats from Rockstar Games), but pertained to early information about the game, which arrived last week to much fanfare.
Although neither Trusted Games nor Rockstar Games have issued a statement since that apology went up, Variety did receive a statement from Take-Two regarding the matter.
“Take-Two takes security seriously and will take legal action against people or publications who leak confidential information,” Rockstar statement reads. “Because this situation involved information about Red Dead Redemption 2, Rockstar Games directed the settlement funds to these three great charities: the American Indian College Fund, the American Prairie Reserve, and the First Nations Development Institute.”
Some of the reactions from this have already begun making the rounds on social media, with a few notable ones below:
This is scaaaaaaaary //t.co/rNVu1SyWKC
— Dominic Preston (@dompreston) November 1, 2018
This could have pretty far-reaching implications for gaming journalism if there was a legal precedent. //t.co/yAS52fPkSa
— Kai Pow (@SomeGuyNamedKai) November 1, 2018
I obviously don’t know the details of this, but nondisclosure agreements can’t bind random third parties who come into possession of the information separately afaik? A very odd, uncomfortable one. //t.co/klZVm34c7I
— Lewis Denby (@gameifyouare) November 1, 2018
This is wild. I strongly sense there is a big piece of this story that hasn’t come out yet that would lead an outlet to capitulating like this. //t.co/0WDeVfINFj
— Mike Futter (@Futterish) November 1, 2018
It’ll be interesting to see if this has a long-term effect on reporting. We’ll keep you informed if we hear anything further.
