![The Almighty Buck The Almighty Buck](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/money_64.png)
![Entertainment Entertainment](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/entertainment_64.png)
![Games Games](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/games_64.png)
WB Using Game Reviews To Calculate Royalties 111
Thanks to The Hollywood Reporter for its article discussing Warner Bros. Interactive's decision to use average review scores in calculating the royalty rates videogame makers must pay to WB. The article explains: "Games based on Warner Bros. licenses must achieve at least a 70% rating [calculated via GameRankings.com and similar services], or incur an increase in royalty rates", with WB's Jason Hall commenting: "An escalating royalty rate kicks in to help compensate us for the brand damage... the further away from 70% it gets, the more expensive the royalty rate becomes... If the publisher delivers on what they promised -- to produce a great game -- it's not even an issue." However, Bruno Bonnell, CEO of Atari, makers of Enter The Matrix, which didn't include this contract clause, comments: "We sold four million copies. That's $250 million worldwide... and Warner Bros. would penalize us because we didn't achieve 70%? Are they joking?"
I would penalize them for Enter: The Matrix (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I would penalize them for Enter: The Matrix (Score:4, Funny)
For whatever that's worth.
Re:I would penalize them for Enter: The Matrix (Score:2)
All in all, this isn't a bad idea. I mean, come on,one of the big corps is actually going to assess their output using something other than the bottom line!
Having said that, I foresee a rise in Game review payola. Anybody want to handicap various game reviewers and how much they can be bought for?
Re:I would penalize them for Enter: The Matrix (Score:4, Insightful)
Only because scores are inflated most of the time. In a proper rating system, only 30% at most of games would get 70% or higher. (It would probably be much less because game quality is probably close to a normal distribution.)
That's my problem with this, actually; you're giving the power to the media. How do you trust people who get paid by game developers for favorable reviews to be unbiased about this sort of thing? Not to mention the fact that the sample size is too small and doesn't have enough variety. If there was an easy way to know what the average Joe's satisfaction with certain games was, that would be much better.
Rob
Re:I would penalize them for Enter: The Matrix (Score:1)
In cases like this, you need to look at the intent of the grading system. In this case it is to measure it against perfection or possibly to measure how bad the faults are.
Re:I would penalize them for Enter: The Matrix (Score:2)
Rob
Re:I would penalize them for Enter: The Matrix (Score:1)
it hurt my opinion of the matrix less than the 2nd and 3rd movies did
The fix is in (Score:5, Insightful)
Gotta start a game rating web site....
Re:The fix is in (Score:4, Interesting)
Too true (Score:5, Interesting)
Games reviewers are not only running the risk of losing advertising income from publisher whose games they game poor ratings to, but they're potentially damaging future relationships with that publisher. The exclusive previews of a new game may well go to a competitor who game a less damning review.
I remember a game I worked on in the mid 90s - one magazine gave it around 40%, another magazine gave it 92%. The difference? The journos from the second magazine were treated to free dinner and beers. It really is that skewed.
Re:Too true (Score:3, Interesting)
me neither, because it's fucking full of crap.
the ass licking that came few years ago(8+) into magazines has in the past years crawled into high profile web sites as well, they MUST provide "oh this is going to be good" shit for the gaming houses in order to get their review copies early enough, not only that but they essentially base reviews entirely on preview information provided by the game developer. and yes, they can't rely on that because PR data doesn't include a
Re:Too true (Score:2)
for the first few weeks the software is available on store shelf they're THE place to look up for solutions to problems.
4 million copies is 250 million in sales? (Score:1)
Re:4 million copies is 250 million in sales? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:4 million copies is 250 million in sales? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:4 million copies is 250 million in sales? (Score:1)
Re:4 million copies is 250 million in sales? (Score:1)
Yes! Hopefully... (Score:4, Funny)
As long as it goes both ways... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:As long as it goes both ways... (Score:1)
Re:As long as it goes both ways... (Score:1)
An Open Letter to Warner Bros. Interactive [gamestay.com]
Think it would work? I'd love to get feedback.
Not joking! (Score:4, Insightful)
Math aside, the Matrix game sucked, and I don't think I'll ever buy any more Matrix games. It absolutely makes sense that bad games should be responsible for brand damage.
Re:Not joking! (Score:2)
Re:Not joking! (Score:2)
This is an argument against him being disappointed in the games. You really think it was unreasonable to expect that something "entertaining" and "mindless" would translate well into a game??! I suppose you are sitting around waiting for an xbox version of the great gatsby?
Re:Not joking! (Score:2)
Just trying to imagine how that would work...but that is just a funny thought...
Re:Not joking! (Score:1)
Re:Not joking! (Score:1)
In other news... (Score:1)
Re:In other news... (Score:1)
Re:In other news... (Score:1)
I assume you are saying now that Warner Brothers is saying that the Brothers damaged the Matrix brand that they (WB) owned a huge portion of and thus aren't going to pay out to anyone who has damaged the brand.
Good medicine (Score:5, Insightful)
Make it a double edged sword. (Score:3, Insightful)
burritoj
Very reasonable (Score:5, Insightful)
Now they could have got money out of that franchise with anything from any developer. But if the game was excellent, they would have retained a lot more goodwill - and possibly helped maintain the franchise in the face of the lackluster sequels. That could have been worth much, much more than these sales figures.
Look at the value Ubi Soft has created in the "Prince of Persia" franchise. PoP was dead, no value. Now it has lots, even if Sands of Time didn't sell as well as it should have. Sega is still milking Sonic the Hedgehog on the basis of a couple good games a decade ago.
These things have tremendous, very real value. It makes sense to protect this value via contract - and pegging things to game reviews is as good of an idea as I can think of.
Re:Very reasonable (Score:1, Redundant)
Re:Very reasonable (Score:2)
No vaues?! The name was obviously not as valuable as the Matrix, but the fact that it was a new Prince of Persia games was certainly one of the things that got my attention and made me interested in the game (and glad it did; that game was awesome). I'm sure that's true of at least some other people as well.
Re:Very reasonable (Score:2)
Me too, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking that a lot of the current gaming mass market remembers (i.e. has even played) the original series (or hell, let's just hope they forgot the terrible earlier 3D
Well... (Score:2)
I too had fond memories of the original PoP, but I certainly wasn't going to pick up a game (like the previously mentioned, abominable PoP 3D) on the strength of the license. I guess I overstated the case a bit, but Sands of Time has certainly revitalized the brand.
Great Idea (Score:3, Interesting)
Video games are interactive. The "story" is told by the user and the charecters are defined and developed by playing the game (at least, in a good game, they are). When you have the baggage that comes with charecters that have already been defined by movies, television, or books, you take away power from the user for no good reason whatsoever. The less of these types of games there are, the better.
Oh, and yes...I'm aware that I can't spell.
Re:Great Idea (Score:2)
I would say that a vast majority of the TV/Movie franchise games out there are terrible, so what you're saying makes a lot of sense and the points you make are valid.
Having said that, there are some significant exceptions. One of the greatest space combat sims I've ever played was X-Wing. X-Wing built a lot on the existing Star Wars franchise, but the gameplay was incredible. The game initially appealed to people because the franchise is very compelling, people kno
Re:Great Idea (Score:1)
Movies are audiovisual. The "story" is told by the use of composition, lighting, sound effects, and music. When you bring the baggage of literary devices, such as omniscient narration, metaphor, or wordplay, you're taking power away from the director for no good reason whatsoever.
As games become more mature, game designers will develop more techniques to translate traditional linear stories into a non-linear interact
Paying for Quality v. Paying for Reviews (Score:5, Insightful)
If Hall actually gets to put this into place - which I doubt he will - why wouldn't Developer X unofficially bring on Mr. EGM Reviewer as a "consultant," with the thanks taking the shape of an HDTV? Allowing game reviewers to ultimately dictact the size of multi-thousand dollar royalty paychecks is a big mistake. I read game magazines all the time, and with the rare exception it's pisspoor writing stitlted with poop and boob jokes. I wouldn't trust them with determining my family's income, so why is Jason?
Re:Paying for Quality v. Paying for Reviews (Score:1)
Game reviewing (Score:2)
B&W certainly was overrated, but only just after its mega-hyped release. It's probably the best example I could come up with to highlight bad game reviewing. In some sense, though, I can't really blame the reviewers for this one - as I liked it too until I'd played
Deus Ex 2 was great. (Score:3, Interesting)
Most of the stuff (positional hitting and universal ammo) make a lot of sense once you beat the game. It helps it flow better, and the game is definitely worth a good playthrough. Just get it with an open mind, and you'll see how good
Re:Deus Ex 2 was great. (Score:2)
The middle third, I thought the game really blew. (And I posted about it everywhere)
When I finally finished the game, I realized that it actually was pretty darn good, and enjoyable.
If they had done something to reduce the number of times the game would load a new environment, I would have liked it a lot more. But in general, DX:IW was a pretty darn good game. (In my opinion...)
Re:Deus Ex 2 was great. (Score:1)
Yea, you have some good points. (Score:2)
I also missed the skill system. The further I got into the game, the more multitools it took to crack locks. I started to wish for a way to allievate this. However, to balance it, it did force you to make some choices about to open/do with them. Granted,
Charging for bad reviews (Score:4, Insightful)
With the tremendous score bloat these days if a game gets below %70 its pretty safe to assume it's junk. Heck, Shrek 2 is above that mark. The only excuse to release a below-70 game is running out of funding, and even that's a mark of bad management.
Honestly, the movie studios taking notice and demanding a little bit of quality is a great thing. Movie licensed games bring in a large number of non-gamers to our world, yet turn off people in droves. The poverty of gameplay is legendary. Now, if only we could make the same arrangement on game to movie licenses...
Enter the Matrix a Good Example (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a great idea, as it protects the brand by discouraging game publishers trying to make a quick buck.
Revolutions (Score:2)
Oh, great (Score:5, Interesting)
The consumer is best off when reviewers are impartial and unbiased.
We already have to deal with product managers doing everything they can to convince reviewers to give high rankings to sell product. The video game industry suffers particularly much from this, with game publishers taking reviewers (often young people that are not paid much for their review work) on special trips or given gifts. It's hard to find a good, unbiased source of reviews.
So now, there are two more variables -- reviewers are *directly determining* income of developers, and one movie publisher now has incentive for rankings to *drop* if they are near the 70% mark.
This reminds me of an article I read once before -- I believe that it might have been a MacUser article by Andy Ihnatkno. Andy was reviewing a software package, and was contacted by the product manager at the developer early in the week, asking
how the review process was going. Now, normally Andy wouldn't say anything, but the product manager was insistent, and finally he reluctantly said "Well, I would have liked it if you hadn't forced me to do task X manually." The reviewer thanked him and hung up, and Andy got back to reviewing.
Next morning, Andy recieved a package via courier. It contained a new version of the software package, and a handwritten note from the product manager -- "I hope that you'll consider trying this version". It turns out that this version contained the automation feature that Andy had mentioned that he missed. That afternoon, the product manager called up again and asked "What do you think of the product?" Andy again mentioned something that the product didn't do, and next morning, another brown package arrived via courier. Andy thought "You know, this really isn't how the review process is supposed to work" -- but the software *was* getting better. Some poor developer had clearly spent a frantic 24/7 over the weekend adding and testing code. This continued on for a bit, and finally Andy finished his review -- giving the software package a good rating.
This is, surprisingly, a bad thing for the end user. Yes, the software package had some new features when done, but here is the problem. A reviewer will only find a certain percentage of the lacks in a software package -- some will go unnoticed. The user depends on the reviewer reviewing the entire package based on his analysis of the lacking features and bugginess of a subset of the package. The reviewer's opinion can then be extrapolated to the entire package. If the developer can change things as the review is happening -- something like a student changing stuff as his professor is grading his assignment -- this leads to a disproportionately good subset of the product and an inflated rating.
Furthermore, it's already a hard thing to pan a product, knowing that it will cut into sales -- publically criticizing people is something that humans don't like to do. How much harder will it be to pan the product of someone like Will Wright, which the reviewer might know personally, knowing that there will be a *direct* impact on the income of that developer?
I could see reviewers refusing to review products where their ratings are used in such a manner as a policy. This can only tend to distort ratings and increase pressure on them to mis-review products.
My guess is that this may be an attempt to help compensate the movie publisher if the movie publisher was the one that did a good job. Enter The Matrix, the game in question, has frequently been criticized as being a bad game. The reason that it sold well may be more due to the efforts of the movie publisher than the developer -- heavy marketing effort from the movie, and a good movie coming out.
This pay-based-on-review policy will tend to decrease royalties for licensed games (especially movie releases). These are frequently done on an extremely tight schedule to ensure a game release shortly after a hit movie. This tends to mak
Re:Oh, great (Score:3, Interesting)
Okay by me. (Score:4, Interesting)
As a fan of certain properties (certain comic books for example; WB owns DC), I'm crossing my fingers that there might finally be some incentive to do a decent job with the characters I want to see. So bad news for the WB as they try to find someone to make another Superman game. But good news for players if we ever see another Superman game in stores?
Unfortunately for the developers, though, game reviews are too arbritrary a test. And sales don't necessarily have everything to do with quality. It's the excitement of the (first) film that sold Enter the Matrix, not the quality of the game. That first film is also what sold the sequels, but that's another topic.
Alex.
Great tool... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Great tool... (Score:1)
No sir, the joke's on US. (Score:2)
Talk about developers losing perspective. I'm still waiting for a half decent Simpsons game. Oh no, wait a minute. I'm not. (Hit and Run fans need not apply.) You need more than to use a good licence as a crutch, people. Get used to it. Make better games.
(Of course, it's also laughable that an article in the "Hollywood Reporter" failed to spell Richard Roeper's name c
I've got a better idea... (Score:3, Interesting)
How about compensating the ripped-off consumer that paid 49 fsking bucks for the lame game in the first place.
Oh, and I see you also sell CD's. How about compensating the ripped-off consumer that paid 16 fsking bucks for the lame album that had one good cut.
Do I sound angry? Do I sound ripped-off? Better pull your head out of your ass, mr record/game company executive before it's too late.
Re:I've got a better idea... (Score:1)
The point is they didn't lie to you. If you h
Re:I've got a better idea... (Score:2)
I maintain that if their franchise
Re:I've got a better idea... (Score:1)
What needs to change is what defines mainstream in the first place. If we have a market of people buying games simply because of the franchise upon which it's based, then we'll never win because the publishers know they
Re:I've got a better idea... (Score:2)
Of course I didn't have too. But I did because of the franchise. That's the whole point. If they want to be proactive about the quality of the franchise, they should do it before they damage it and screw consumers with shitty games. The trouble is that the pigs want it both ways. They want to throw everything out and see what sticks to the wall and screw everything else.
I do understand where you're coming from with the
Re:I've got a better idea... (Score:1)
Interesting idea... (Score:3, Interesting)
10 years ago I was Producer on several games based on WB licenses, and I can tell you, all they care about is how it looks and how accurately their IP is depicted, etc. They end up with their hands in everything, and if their decisions affect gameplay, so be it. They aren't gamers. They don't recognize that gameplay comes before visuals. It's very difficult to make an innovative game when you have this group of non-gamers telling you what you can and can't do with their characters.
Re:Interesting idea... (Score:2)
Been down that path. They are a big PITA to work with, for exactly those reasons.
Also comments like, "Make it hipper...edgier."
(Can you make it vauger, more nebulous?)
But don't discount license games (even on the GBA). Yeah, there is a lot of crap, but so many get made that there is a new school that looks on these arbitrary character sets and rules as a jumping off point for making some interesting, well designed games.
Sadly, it seems GBA reviewers are folk who feel that being a GBA revi
Re:Interesting idea... (Score:2)
This is as ridiculous as... (Score:1)
Hurting the developer (Score:3, Insightful)
- An insufficient budget, forcing the developer the cut features that make the distiction between a good game and a average/mediocre game.
- Design changes at later stages or without renegotiation of the schedule and funding. Forced changes from those without a full understanding of the game can easily muddle the gameplay and result in a poor final product.
- A too short or too rigid deadline, forcing the developer to submit an unfinished or unpolished title.
It's all too easy to perceive the situation where WB or a similar publisher enforces situations like these resulting in an average (50%) game instead of a good (75%) game. They then pull out their own increased royalties and profit, leaving the developer with a smaller than expected sum that may not even break even.
Re:Hurting the developer (Score:2)
If better games get made because of this, I'm all for it. Who wouldn't want better games?
If fewer games get made because of this, I couldn't care less. There are already more games out there than I will ever be able to complete in my lifetime.
If "respected" game reviewers get paid off to give a game a good review, I'm all for it, because I will be able to safely ignore 100% of the game review magazines and websites for
Olsen twins have got them beat. (Score:1)
What about the dissenting opinion? (Score:3, Insightful)
NOTE: I really don't want to start a flamewar over a 10-12 year old topic so if you think that SFII:SCE was the cat's meow then I apologize for making your blood boil, but there were many SF2 fans who owned a Genesis (including me) who feel that we were given an inferior product compared to the SNES version which scored lower.
Issue regarding Quality / Controll of Franchise. (Score:1)
Re:Issue regarding Quality / Controll of Franchise (Score:2)
Re:Issue regarding Quality / Controll of Franchise (Score:1)
You can develop something quickly.
You can develop something cheap.
You can develop somet
Re:Issue regarding Quality / Controll of Franchise (Score:2)
And there you have it -- Atari is *already* being punished for poor quality standards.
It's spell-nazi time! (Score:1)
Re:It's spell-nazi time! (Score:1)
Delays delays delays.. oh yah and cancellations (Score:2)
Re:Delays delays delays.. oh yah and cancellations (Score:1)
This would be great.. in a perfect world. (Score:2)
Unfortunately we dont live in a perfect world. What would happen is:
Developers of bad games who sold great will sta
The movie sold your game then... (Score:2)
In this case, the movie promoted and sold the game and the game studio had little or nothign to do with it's success. Because the game was buggy and crap but the licence sold it. So they should penalized.
Unbiased web ratings, yeah right. (Score:2, Interesting)
I belive that these numbers should be around 50% but they are around 75%
Link [gamerankings.com]
Re:Unbiased web ratings, yeah right. (Score:2)
Maybe it has something to do with how tests are graded (with 70 or 80 being a 'pass
Anyone else (Score:1)
Re:Anyone else (Score:1)
Matrix brand was damaged. (Score:2)
Mr. Bonnell made a game that sucked royally. He did severe damage to the brand in that if the game was decent, a sequel could be made that would do equally well. Also, the game would have sold much more than 250mil if it had gotten a good review
Bruno Bonnell also said (Score:2)
Bruno went on to elaborate: "I mean, seriously, if we'd bothered to fix all the bugs, sort out the half finished textures and play tested the damn thing we couldn't have released the game until after people had seen Matrix Revolutions. Who'd buy want to buy the game after seeing that train wreck?"
Unfortunately Bonnell was unable to continue
These folks are clueless... (Score:1)
Wrong, Mr. Hall. I think your result will be less games.
I'm no professional game developer, but as far as I'm concerned I'd rather not even risk going with a liscenced product if it means I might have to shell out a rather hefty amount of money because the "reviews" say my product sucked. Hopefully, the rest of the game development community will use this as an excuse to explore some fresh idea
Re:These folks are clueless... (Score:2)
Re:These folks are clueless... (Score:1)
Re:These folks are clueless... (Score:2)
Seriously. 30% of slashdotters are over 40 and think pong was the pinnacle of game design. Soem of us are over 30 and think every thign went south after Pac man. Others are over 20 and firmly believe that everything since Final fantasy 6 nothing is nearly as good. And thos under 20 think Anything that doesn't change color more
I review games for an online publication, (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, this could lead to the review system being corrupted (further!!!), but I think that readers of reviews quickly learn which review sites are honest, and which ones are being bribed/corrupted, simply because their experience of a game will not match up with a corrupt (or inept) review.
A punishment system is dearly needed to financially cripple "shit development houses", so that they are not in a position to spew force further crap into the marketplace. In a Darwinian sense, we need to select against these houses (and select for good houses).
I would obviously prefer it if it was the norm to return games that one is unhappy with, but I understand that this is not common since retailers have concerns that consumers are copying and returning the software.
My feverent hope is that consumers will increasingly use retailers that have something like a 1-week return policy (without the third degree, thank-you very much) and that the retailer will have a little checklist which the consumer can tick off why the game was returned (if they so choose), which will be attached to the software being returned:
Consumers reason for game return:
[ ] Unwanted present
[ ] Review inaccurate: (review site/magazine)
[ ] Not fun
[ ] Not long enough
[ ] Dated features
[ ] Buggy
[ ] Overpriced
etc
The sooner developers and publisers are financially hurt for releasing titles which are inadequate, the better. Power to the people!
(BTW: I review for http://vgnz.com , feel free to slag my reviews
If 4 million people buy a shitty game... (Score:2)