FINALLY! Holding companies accountable for crappy games...
Jordan Lund
taking a bigger share if the product they licensed ends up sucking.
:^)
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?section_name=pub&aid=3525
Warner Bros plans penalties for poor quality licensed titles
Rob Fahey 19:50 26/05/2004
Hall targets publishers who "exploit movie studios all day long" with
bad products
A new scheme being championed by Warner Bros Interactive Entertainment
boss Jason Hall would see publishers whose games are reviewed poorly
being penalised by higher royalty payments to the license holder.
Under the terms of Warner Bros' new contracts, the company will charge
publishers a fluctuating royalty rate based on review scores for games
- with titles which score under 70 per cent on aggregate being subject
to higher royalty payments.
The scheme, according to Hall, is designed to protect the company's
valuable intellectual property from being damaged by publishers making
bad licensed games. He plans to use sites such as GameRankings and
MetaCritic, which aggregate review scores from a wide range of media
sources, as the basis for the system.
"The game industry has had its time to exploit movie studios all day
long and to get away with producing inferior products," Hall is quoted
as saying in the Hollywood Reporter. "But, with Warner Brothers, no
more. Those days are over. And we mean it. This isn't just lip
service. Honestly, the bad games are over."
Although it's not unusual for publishers to pay close attention to
sites like MetaCritic in forming their marketing and development
plans, this is the first time that a company such as Warner Bros has
proposed using the system as an empirical measurement of game quality.
"An escalating royalty rate kicks in to help compensate us for the
brand damage that's taking place," explained Hall. "The further away
from 70 per cent 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."
Reaction from some parts of the industry to Hall's proposition has
been furious - with Atari chairman Bruno Bonnell quoted in the
Hollywoood Reporter article as saying that the agreement "effectively
insults our business."
Then again, Atari is exactly the type of company which Hall is
targeting. Last year, the firm sold some 4 million units of Enter The
Matrix, a tie-in to Warner Bros' The Matrix Reloaded movie - but the
game was a critical disaster, filled with bugs and generally
considered to be an extremely shoddy and rushed product.
Hall's reasoning is that products like Enter The Matrix do
immeasurable damage to the franchise which spawns them, and indeed,
there's a general feeling that The Matrix franchise may well now be a
goner as far as videogames are concerned. Bonnell counters by pointing
out that Enter The Matrix took $250 million in revenues worldwide.
"That's what a big major motion picture makes," he protests. "And
Warner Bros would penalise us because we didn't achieve 70 per cent?
Are they joking?" Hall responds that "sales don't equal quality" - a
mantra which many of the industry's businessmen don't want to hear,
but one which perhaps needs to be driven home.
Of course, the real problem with Hall's approach is that videogame
reviews aren't always as objective as they should be. The practice of
PR and marketing teams "buying" reviews with exclusive covers and
advertising deals for magazines continues to influence review scores
massively, while others would argue that many reviewers working for
large websites and magazines are simply uninformed or unprofessional.
If Hall's plan goes ahead, it will cast the spotlight not only on
publishers who churn out low-quality shovelware based on movie
franchises, but also on the entire industry of game reviewing. Right
now, it's unlikely that either aspect of the games market is ready for
such scrutiny.
Andrew Ryan Chang
>Of course the game companies could also do the opposite and start
>taking a bigger share if the product they licensed ends up sucking.
>:^)
Yeouch. There's a massive financial incentive for developers to
bribe reviewers for higher scores *and* a corresponding incentive for
publishers to push review scores down. (Yes, theoretically publishers
would want higher scores. However, scores aren't tightly correlated to
sales, particularly in the case of licensed games. So under this proposed
system the ideal situation for them is Enter The Matrix: big sales, bad
reviews == most revenue for publisher)
--
"The last time [the Bush administration] used [the national security] excuse
was when they refused to tell the UN inspectors where Saddam was hiding the
WMDs that Rumsfeld knew were 'in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east,
west, south and north somewhat.'" - http://atrios.blogspot.com/ (Mar 21,2004)
HockeyTownUSA
between review sites and publishers/developers. Not to mention the fact that
publishers rush product to market before its done. Publishers need to have
better internal quality control. Have their own beta testers to give
feedback and force the developer to meet certain standards. Not push
something out to market and then penalize afterwards if it gets a bad
review, that's just bad business sense. Publishers just need to take the
responsibility, bottom line.
If Chrysler asks Mitsubishi to build an engine for a Chrysler car, and
Chrysler just puts the engine in the Chrysler without validating its
durability and quality itself, and the Chrysler car keeps breaking down
because of the Mitsubishi engine, it is ultimately Chrysler's responsibility
to make sure that the enigne meets certain standards. Another example is the
XBOX itself. Microsoft is responsible for putting a crappy Thompson DVD
drive in some of its consoles, but obviously it doesn't meet the same
quality standards as the Philips or Samsung. It was Microsoft's bad decision
to sell it with the XBOX, so they take the hit.
Damn publishers just collect money one way or the other and blame everything
on everyone else. What a bunch of politicians!
Android
"Jordan Lund" <lu...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:92dbefbe.04052...@posting.google.com...
> Of course the game companies could also do the opposite and start
> taking a bigger share if the product they licensed ends up sucking.
> :^)
>
> http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?section_name=pub&aid=3525
What a horrible idea!
I think the current system works just fine. Some crappy games sell a million
copies and make the licensor and publisher money. If the licensor only cares
about the money, they won't change their way of doing business. If they care
about "quality," they can refuse to license their properties to companies
with a poor track record. At the same time, some awesome games sell poorly.
If the licensor cares about "quality," they can console themselves with the
fact that the game did right by the property, even if no one bought it. If
the licensor only cares about the money, they'll try to figure out a way to
make the game more appealing next time around.
Sales figures have very little correlation with review scores. Highly-rated
games such as ICO and The Mark of Kri sold poorly, while games such as Enter
The Matrix sold a ton despite poor reviews. If publishers were charged
higher licensing fees for games that got bad reviews, and lower fees for
games receiving good reviews, there would be even more of an incentive for
publishers to attempt to influence magazine review scores. I think it would
also create a chilling effect. Some developers/publishers are probably
willing to take a chance with a little-known or second-rate license, pushing
a mediocre game out the door because they can still make money paying $5 a
unit towards the licensing fees. Why would they risk having that licensing
fee raised to $10 per unit if the game got poor reviews, causing them to
barely break even or possibly lose money?
If Warner Bros. isn't happy with the way developers are treating its
properties, the solution is for Warner Bros. NOT TO LICENSE its properties
to third-rate companies such as Titus (Superman 64) and Kemco (Batman: Dark
Tomorrow). They've got the power to do something about it. The problem is
one of their own making. Too many companies only care about the income from
licensing their properties, rather than the potential long-term "damage" to
those properties thanks to crappy games.
Christopher Fowler
> What a horrible idea!
I think ETM was a cas in which the publisher had a pile of
cash to create the came. They spent more money fueling the
hype engine than they did in development.
A balance is difficult. You can reprimand based on sales because
as you said shite games that sell high would not pose an
issue for the WB.
I think the WB needs to focus on its TV shows first. When they
can get that right then they can mess with the licensees for
their entertainment.
Andrew Ryan Chang
>Of course the game companies could also do the opposite and start
>taking a bigger share if the product they licensed ends up sucking.
>:^)
>
>http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?section_name=pub&aid=3525
>
>Warner Bros plans penalties for poor quality licensed titles
>
>Rob Fahey 19:50 26/05/2004
>Hall targets publishers who "exploit movie studios all day long" with
>bad products
>
>
>A new scheme being championed by Warner Bros Interactive Entertainment
>boss Jason Hall would see publishers whose games are reviewed poorly
>being penalised by higher royalty payments to the license holder.
Perhaps they should just weild the axe before a game comes out.
Insist on keeping good quality, don't schedule to the bone, and be willing
to make sacrifices (feature cuts or schedule slips) rather than ship a bad
game. Be present at every milestone, rather than seeing the thing for the
first time two years later and suffering buyer's remorse then.
>Under the terms of Warner Bros' new contracts, the company will charge
>publishers a fluctuating royalty rate based on review scores for games
>- with titles which score under 70 per cent on aggregate being subject
>to higher royalty payments.
Seriously curious to see which, if any, publishers will go for
this.
--
And we read of [George W. Bush's] insistence on the importance of individual
achievement and personal responsibility -- in a ghost-written autobiography.
-- Lars-Erik Nelson (http://www.bartcop.com/lnelson.htm)
Jordan Lund
> So under this proposed system the ideal situation for them is Enter The
> Matrix: big sales, bad reviews == most revenue for publisher)
But you know Enter the Matrix didn't get that many bad reviews, at
least on the Xbox it didn't, IIRC only the PC and PS2 versions were
below 70%. Check Gamerankings. I think the titles that have Warner
pissed the most are the Batman games. Also isn't Scooby Doo a Warner
property?
The problem is that most developers doing a licensed title realize
that the target demographic is kids and kids, frankly, wouldn't know a
good game if it bit them in the ass. Look at the vast quantity of crap
on the Gameboy for example.
- Jordan
Christopher Fowler
> But you know Enter the Matrix didn't get that many bad reviews, at
> least on the Xbox it didn't, IIRC only the PC and PS2 versions were
> below 70%. Check Gamerankings. I think the titles that have Warner
> pissed the most are the Batman games. Also isn't Scooby Doo a Warner
> property?
>
Superman. I think Superman is a WB property
Paul Angstrom
in message <92dbefbe.04052...@posting.google.com>:
>arc...@sfu.ca (Andrew Ryan Chang) wrote in message news:<c934en$cpb$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca>...
>
>The problem is that most developers doing a licensed title realize
>that the target demographic is kids and kids, frankly, wouldn't know a
>good game if it bit them in the ass.
I see. You're referring to the "Olsen Twins Principle."
FLY135 @ hot not not
> taking a bigger share if the product they licensed ends up sucking.
> :^)
>
> http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?section_name=pub&aid=3525
>
> Warner Bros plans penalties for poor quality licensed titles
If they are serious about making good games then they should fund the
development themselves and make sure it's good before it goes out the door.
Basing royalties on game reviewers sounds like a welfare program for lawyers
and a waste of the taxpayer's money hearing these things in court.
Scott H
> taking a bigger share if the product they licensed ends up sucking.
> :^)
>
> http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?section_name=pub&aid=3525
>
> Warner Bros plans penalties for poor quality licensed titles
>
As long as they actually only plan to punish developers of games that
average below a 70% on gamerankings I'd say it's a great idea. Plenty of
great games end up averaging over a 70% on that site, and I think that's a
good score for most games. If he was going to expect an average of 80 or
even 90s then it'd be ridiculous, because review sites are way too variable
on the scores, and any game getting above an 85% usually doesn't merit such
a score anyway.
Aside from that, other problems I can see are hinted to at the bottom of
the article. Increased scrutiny placed on developers and the review
industry would definitely cause changes in both, which could be a good thing
or a bad thing. It could increase the amount of bribing going on in order
to get rave reviews, and it could also force review sites to get better
quality reviewers and try better to wash out genre/system bias in their
reviews. Either way, it'll cause changes for sure.
Scott H
"Andrew Ryan Chang" <arc...@sfu.ca> wrote in message
news:c934en$cpb$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca...
> Jordan Lund <lu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >Of course the game companies could also do the opposite and start
> >taking a bigger share if the product they licensed ends up sucking.
> >:^)
>
> Yeouch. There's a massive financial incentive for developers to
> bribe reviewers for higher scores *and* a corresponding incentive for
> publishers to push review scores down. (Yes, theoretically publishers
> would want higher scores. However, scores aren't tightly correlated to
> sales, particularly in the case of licensed games. So under this proposed
> system the ideal situation for them is Enter The Matrix: big sales, bad
> reviews == most revenue for publisher)
Does Warner Bros publish the games? I thought they just got royalties and
the developer published them.
Android
It's Warner Bros. own fault for licensing Batman to Kemco. What did they
expect from that company? A masterpiece? And, mediocre reviews or not, the
Scooby Doo games sold well enough (on PS2, anyway) to qualify for "Greatest
Hits" status.
Overall, I think it is a good thing that intellectual property owners are
starting to think about the long-term "damage" to their brand names when
they license them to third-rate companies that churn out so much crap. But
the problem is of Warner Bros. (and other licensors) own making--they were
the ones who were content to rake in money from licensing fees without
regard to how their properties were handed.
LucasArts handles its own properties (Star Wars, Indiana Jones), so there is
no reason why Warner Bros. can revive Time-Warner Interactive or form their
own publishing company/development houses. Either that, or all they have to
do is raise their licensing fees so that only EA can afford to pay for them
and...voila!...no more problem. Despite the criticism they get from not
being "hard-core" enough, EA has done well with the 007 and Lord of the
Rings license, and I expect they will do right by Superman as well.
Andrew Ryan Chang
>Does Warner Bros publish the games? I thought they just got royalties and
>the developer published them.
Yes, my mistake. I thought Hall was going to WB in order to set
up a system where some of their WB licenses would be published and
developed internally... but yeah, his process is talking about games
licensed and published by others.
--
We learn that [George W Bush] regarded price controls on American natural gas
as European-style socialism, yet that he was perfectly willing to use the
state's power to seize property below market value in order to build a new
stadium for his baseball team. -- Lars-Erik Nelson
Scott H
> Scott H <sheat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Does Warner Bros publish the games? I thought they just got royalties
and
> >the developer published them.
>
> Yes, my mistake. I thought Hall was going to WB in order to set
> up a system where some of their WB licenses would be published and
> developed internally... but yeah, his process is talking about games
> licensed and published by others.
Okay, so yeah, publishers getting more money from developers if the game
stinks would definitely cause publishers to push for more crappy games, but
trademark owners getting more money for the same kinda seems like a good
idea to me.
Joe62
wrote:
>Of course the game companies could also do the opposite and start
>taking a bigger share if the product they licensed ends up sucking.
>:^)
>
>http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?section_name=pub&aid=3525
Jason Hall is delusional. No deal will ever be signed under these
terms. Ever.
Joe62
wrote:
>The problem is that most developers doing a licensed title realize
>that the target demographic is kids and kids, frankly, wouldn't know a
>good game if it bit them in the ass.
I think it is far truer to say that gamer reviewers wouldn't know a
decent kids game if their lives depended on it. Most reviewers knock
20% right off the top of any game targetted at kids. Idiotic. Imagine
if movie reviewers were that clueless.