Warner Bros. to penalize publishers for bad games based on it's licenses
http://www.gamespot.com/news/2004/05...s_6099292.html
The Matrix makers will demand higher payments from publishers who produce poorly reviewed games based on their properties. While game reviews often have an effect on a publisher's bottom line, that effect has never been quantifiable. However, now, Warner Brothers Interactive Entertainment has begun directly tying royalty payments from licensees to ratings from game-review sites. Speaking to The Hollywood Reporter last week, WBIE senior vice president Jason Hall revealed that his company is now using review-aggregation sites such as GameRankings.com to determine royalty rates from publishers licensing properties based on Warner Bros. movie, television, or other media. If the game does not achieve an average 70-percent rating, the publisher will have to pay a penalty in the form of higher royalties. "An escalating royalty rate kicks in to help compensate us for the brand damage that's taking place," Hall told the Reporter. "The further away from 70 percent it gets, the more expensive the royalty rate becomes. So, frankly, if the publisher delivers on what they promised--to produce a great game--it's not even an issue." However, Warner Bros.' pricing scheme would have been a huge issue with Enter the Matrix, the best-selling game of 2003 based on a Warner Bros. title. Buoyed by prerelease enthusiasm for The Matrix Reloaded and The Matrix Revolutions, the cross-platform Enter the Matrix sold four million copies worldwide. But those good sales were in spite of the game getting middling ratings: On game rankings, the PC and PS2 editions have an average score of 66.8 and 66.9 percent, while the GameCube and Xbox versions earned 70.6 percent and 71.5 percent. Combined, all four rankings leave an average of 68.95 percent--just short of Warner Bros.' benchmark. Unsurprisingly, Warner's concrete benchmark is not sitting well with Bruno Bonnell, CEO and president of Atari. "[Enter the Matrix] sold $250 million worldwide," he told the Reporter, "That's what a big major motion picture makes. And Warner Bros. would penalize us because we didn't achieve 70 percent? Are they joking?" However, Hall is adamant in his belief that WBIE's new system will help ensure quality licensed games--like Electronic Arts' The Lord of the Rings and James Bond-based titles--and prevent misfires such as Ubisoft's Charlie's Angels. "The game industry has had its time to exploit movie studios all day long and to get away with producing inferior products," said Hall. "But, with Warner Brothers, no more...the bad games are over." By Tor Thorsen -- GameSpot POSTED: 05/26/04 11:47AM PST I actually laughed out loud at the bolded part heh. Time for publishers to stop putting licensed crap on the market. |
:lol:rotfl:lol:rotfl:lol:
|
Well then I'm going to penalize WB for getting bad reviews on their movies... in fact, if I think the movie sucks, I'm going to make them pay me 20% of the gross.
|
This worries me. This is leading down a bad path, which could lead to dishonest reviews or products not being made available to reviewers.
|
Originally posted by DRG This worries me. This is leading down a bad path, which could lead to dishonest reviews or products not being made available to reviewers. :lol: http://xbox.ign.com/articles/383/383421p1.html |
Originally posted by flashburn Dishonest reviews?!?! That would just be insane! :lol: http://xbox.ign.com/articles/383/383421p1.html There will always be dishonest reviews unfortunately DRG, that's why you go by a percentage of a lot of reviews so at least the dishonest ones don't effect the overall score as much. No reason to worry about publishers not sending games out to reviewers to be reviewed, because that happens already some of the time, heh. The review sites usually just buy a retail copy to review. |
This sounds suspiciously like that whole Star Trek license issue from a few months ago, but in reverse...
Although I'm all for better games, i don't think this is the way to go about it. Some reviewers, for example, use a 5 point scale, and so a 3, which would be an average game, would just be 60%. What kind of sample of reviewers would they take? What if a game developer makes a game based on a movie that turns out to be a flop and ruins sales of that game? This is just plain stupid, if it turns out to be tue. |
I really don't like the idea, but maybe it would somewhat stop companies from using licenses to sell crappy games.
|
Originally posted by flashburn Dishonest reviews?!?! That would just be insane! :lol: http://xbox.ign.com/articles/383/383421p1.html |
Didn't Enter the Matrix get rushed to meet the movie deadline? SHould the game maker get penalized because they were forced to put out a crappy product?
|
This will be interesting to follow
|
Originally posted by shadowhawk2020 Didn't Enter the Matrix get rushed to meet the movie deadline? SHould the game maker get penalized because they were forced to put out a crappy product? |
Well, I think this idea does have merit. While the 70% thing is perhaps too specific (considering the wide variances in how people review) it could definately work.
The statement about Enter the Matrix is kind of funny. Sure it sold 4 million copies, but that's because it was the Matrix, not because of the game. They could've released Pong with Neo's face emblazend on the ball and still have sold a couple million copies. So really I don't mind WB holding them to some standard. Why not? most licensed products suck anyway, so with this you'd have only companies that think they can make a good game, trying to produce one. They'd need to pick something less specific though to judge. |
Originally posted by glassdragon ok, point made but what was stopping them from hiring a few more people so that the game would be a lot better? |
How about Warner Bros don't license out their movies for videogames? That would help.
|
Just considering the attitude of Atari's rep shows why they put out an inferior product. To paraphrase "So what if we put out crap! We sold $250 million worth of product."
I also see this trend as a large indicator as to how the gaming industry is changing. Now companies can put out crap as long as it is "popular" whether it be a liscense or a excessive violence. Creativity seems to be in danger of becoming sucked out of the industry. It doesn't necessarily have to be something totally different, as long as it is done well and adds something unique. Unfortunately it seems as if all the Joe Six Packs are holding the reigns of the gaming industry while the true gamers are seeking refuge in the few bastions of truely unique well made games. This is why crap like Enter the Matrix can sell millions while games like Beyond Good and Evil sit in the bargain bin weeks after release. |
Originally posted by tanman Creativity seems to be in danger of becoming sucked out of the industry. |
Originally posted by tanman Just considering the attitude of Atari's rep shows why they put out an inferior product. To paraphrase "So what if we put out crap! We sold $250 million worth of product." So Bonnell is responding to that and probably meant, justifiably so, something more like, "we exceeded your wildest sales expectations. What more can you reasonably ask for?" I know they put a proven team on the Matrix games and apparently were working under strict deadlines. |
Originally posted by flashburn Dishonest reviews?!?! That would just be insane! :lol: http://xbox.ign.com/articles/383/383421p1.html |
Originally posted by PixyJunket "Live In Your World, Play In Ours." and that's all I'm going to say. I wouldn't put all the blame on Sony or the publishers. The mainstream gamers have just as much of the blame as they do. They just don't buy unique creative games anymore in seems, so the publishers follow suit. Some, but not all, fun and/or creative games I have played on the PS1,PS2: Vagrant Story Ape Escape Parappa The Rapper Monster Rancher Tecmo's Deception series Aquanauts Holiday Jumping Flash Series (I know I'm not the only one that wants a sequel) DMC 1(finally bringing action games into 3D and actually work, not without some faults of course) Klonoa 2:Lunatea's Veil The Mark of Kri |
I'm not saying there aren't dishonest reviews now, but I fear with real financial incentives now at stake with reviews (other than the usual effect on sales a bad review may have), companies might "persuade" review sources to tame their poor reviews even more than usual.
|
This is one big promotion for GameRankings.com ... isn't it?
;) |
Originally posted by Galanthas I'm assuming your blaming Sony for the lack of creativity? Today, however, I put more blame on the consumer than anything. All it takes is a couple of weeks on this forum (which isn't even a major gaming site) to see the attitude Joe Six Pack puts on innovation in their video games. |
Originally posted by John Spartan I think you missed his point. Is anyone is gullible enough to believe that WBIE is doing this because they care about quality just for quality's sake? At best, they're doing this because they think good reviews = higher sales. At worst, as the article subtly implies, it's an excuse to grab more cash back from publishers even when a game has met sales expectations. So Bonnell is responding to that and probably meant, justifiably so, something more like, "we exceeded your wildest sales expectations. What more can you reasonably ask for?" I know they put a proven team on the Matrix games and apparently were working under strict deadlines. I still think it is sad that a subpar game like Enter the matrix can sell millions of copies. |
Originally posted by Chrisedge That is one of my favorite games. So...Don't know what your point is. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:12 PM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.