Crappy video game makers

[Jolly Rogers]

Warner instituting review-based royalty rate for games

Warner Bros. to peg license royalties to game reviews

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.

[wolfx]

w00ts! Can we expect good movie -> game conversions soon?

[Ali Sama]

wow....

[JsARCLIGHT]

Uhhh... what about some of the games out there than get horrid reviews but still sell a good number of copies? I've seen a few titles in my day that sucked big time but people still bought thousands of copies... a lot of "launch" titles come to mind. Plus, to me and a lot of people I know, most games are "bad" games. Putting all their oomf behind the reviews is almost like what hollywood does in putting all their focus on the opening weekend box office takes and place. It could be the greatest movie of all time and have a cult following but if it is not boffo at the box office in the first week then hollywood tends to pull a lot of it's backing of the picture... unless it is an "oscar contender" they are trying to push.

This could be a good thing but it also has the makings of a very bad thing.

[Dat Pinche Haro!]

dude...this is sooooooooooooooo funny!!!

[Mr March]

Uh, so how will this work for Deer Hunter? The game sucked, but was one of the biggest grossing PC titles of all time. I can see Warner will soon become the defact business to avoid when liscensing game software from this point on. Like American Express, everyone will reject it and simply go to a cheaper option.

[Blaine23]

Because gaming magazine reviewers are soooooo committed to journalistic integrity and could never be bought or comped enough free crap and hookers to give higher reviews...

Wonderfully bad idea!

[Druna Skass]

Hmph...

I don't buy games based off movies anyway...

[Akilae]

The danger here that I see is that companies will now aim for commercially popular games that aim for broad appeal... as if they don't do so already... just that they'll be even more risk averse, and we'll get more games like Deus Ex: IW...

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

hey now for 25cents in the arcade deer huntern is awesome! always thought it would be better with RPGs and machine guns thouhg.

[Valkyrie]

Uhhh... what about some of the games out there than get horrid reviews but still sell a good number of copies?

Simple. If a game's bad but it still sells well, then they can afford to pay the jacked up royalties

But if it's a bad game and it sells miserably... best believe that company's gonna be losing their ass.

[Wes]

So now video games are going to be like movies: either they bribe the reviewers or they target games for the reviewers?!? That's great, we really need E3 to become the Oscars...

[Gunbuster]

Just like what Blaine23 was saying.

If this follows through...Publishers/developers will spend more money on the game reviewers to ensure the high ratings instead of spending it on the game development :-( And if this really follow through, I think becoming a game reviewer will be worthwhile, cause I know all the game companies will stand in line with kneepads

[Smiley424]

Good idea, just won't work in the real world.

[MSW]

Erm...this is a potentialy really bad idea...

First off movie basied games are often pushed out the door early just to meet some anal retentive pre-established release date set to ride piggy back with the films release...hell, read the postmordems over at Gamasutra ... if they wouldn't try to make AAA games (requireing tons of art resources) in such little time frames, well they might be capable of produceing better games...part of the reason movie basied games often have such low review scores is because of the micro-management overhead under which they are developed.

Second off, you think publishers will be leary of finaceing the development of licensed games...the developers themselves will be even more adverse to takeing on such projects knowing how well (and often) pubishers can/have/do screw them over on regular non-licensed games...

Third, the game industry is publisher driven, and in many respects mirrors the film industry...there is a huge push to make as much $$$ during the first couple of weeks a game is release, then due to retail shelveing space...last months hot new title is pushed aside for this months hot new freshness (much like movie companies push for the big opening weekend box office take)...however unlike films where the movie comapnies can still re-release older works on VHS and now on DVD where they can still make the company money...game publishers have little ability to re-release older games in a way they can still make some $$$ (and when they do, it often requires the investment of writeing emulators and/or porting the game code to newer systems)...you start putting the squeeze on publishers, and as crap runs down hill, so they start putting the squeeze on developers....which equals even more risk adverse publishers

Fourth, if movie companies were so concerned about the quality of thier wares...shouldn't the be instituteing a simular policy in the form of cheaper movie tickets for lower quality films? cheaper DVDs of bad flicks? why not pass thier concern on down to us, the paying customer?

[ewilen]

I'm with most everyone else--it seems like an awful idea to me. Not sure what the goal is, either. The movie companies should simply restructure their royalty contracts so that the game makers pay more for the first X units (since those are sold largely on the publicity and goodwill generated by the movie) and gradually less per unit after that (since those sales are more influenced by the quality of the game itself).

The movie maker would thus get insurance against the game maker producing a lemon that "free rides" off the movie, and the game maker would be encouraged to make a truly great game whose popularity would feed synergistically back into the franchise.

[Druna Skass]

That's great, we really need E3 to become the Oscars...

Ugh, now there's a truly disturbing thought...

[Khyron]

Maybe they should just base the royalty fees based on how well the game sells. Lower amount of games sold=higher fees. All that really matters is how the public likes the game right? If the companies did a good job making the game, more people would probably want to buy it.

Maybe take the reviews into consideration but don't totally base the fee's on it. I personally hate football games so I would probably give it a lower rating then I would some action game. It might be the best game ever for football but if I don't like them, don't expect the best marks.

[Black Valkyrie]

I think it`s better that video games should be like before like in the 70`s and 80`s with no media hype around it (I liked it back then that no body really gave attention to it), then I think more original games would come out plus no hollywood style games.

Till today I still play NES games (emulators now) especially Castlevania-III the Jap version . Like I said before if this continues this way then expect a huge falldown in the videogame business like in 1983, many game experts are saying now this especially the guy who made Pac-Man.

Tell me something how many games based on movies were good ? If you any titles in you mind please say it.

[JsARCLIGHT]

The only two games based on movies that are worth a darn in my book were Super Star Wars and it's sequel (which was a better game) Super Empire Strikes Back, both for the Super Nintendo. I could not put those games down back when they first came out.

Do... or do not... there is no try...

[Black Valkyrie]

The only two games based on movies that are worth a darn in my book were Super Star Wars and it's sequel (which was a better game) Super Empire Strikes Back, both for the Super Nintendo. I could not put those games down back when they first came out.

Do... or do not... there is no try...

Same here especially the Empire, I used to play over and over and I still remember the password for the last stage : SWPMSS .

OK then how about the Terminator for the Sega Genesis the, yet the game was short but it followed the movie plot nicely and a very good sound track. And another one Robocop Arcade by Dataeast I liked that one a lot.

[ewilen]

If you count arcade games, I wasted a lot of quarters on the old Atari Star Wars game.

http://www.klov.com/S/Star_Wars.html

But I can't say I'd have much of a desire to play it these days. Gravitar, Marble Madness, and Spy Hunter, though....Mmmmmm.

[Sundown]

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?"

READ: Silly. What does game quality have to do with anything?

That said, I actually enjoyed Enter The Matrix. First fighting game that actually felt like a kung-fu movie.

And although this royalty/review system has potential for abuse, it might actually not hurt publishers that badly in terms of them wanting to take unconvential risks and making non-mass marketed games-- since few if any titles based on licenses have ever ventured to provide gameplay that wasn't a re-hash of some existing mainstream forumla.

Wonder how this effects the Matrix MMORPG, or if their contract sidesteps this clause, since the project was started long before it. It'd be nice for that game to not suck.

-Al

Edited May 27, 2004 by Sundown