Slashdot Mirror
WB Using Game Reviews To Calculate Royalties
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?"
The game had some fun elements, but it wasn't really a very good game. I think it did hurt my opinion of The Matrix. Come on, 70% isn't that much to ask for.
or will be, shortly. Any time big bucks depend on some web site operator's opinion, that web site operator is going to get a great offer...
:-)
Gotta start a game rating web site....
It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.
"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?"
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.
As someone who has worked on crapped-out shovelware licensed GBA games, I believe this is very good news. Often times the license games skimp on design phase and go straight to development, usually using a cookie-cutter engine and game mechanics from a previous title. With some penalties in place, perhaps companies will spend more time thinking about how they can make "Michigan Frog Racing" fun, or just find something else to do if they can't do that.
I think that a brand damage clause is reasonable. If for no other reason than the selfish desire to see fewer braindead/marketing driven tie-ins. The clause should cut both ways though; if the game is awesome and wins GOTY or similar awards then the royalty rate should be reduced commiserately.
burritoj
At one point, "The Matrix Online" was a game license that was very valuable - a marquee game. There was a lot of goodwill out there. "Enter the Matrix" exchanged a lot of that goodwill for money (as did the last two movies).
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.
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
The biggest problem with Hall's manifesto is that he's not paying for quality, he's paying for good reviews. There's a big difference. While there is usually correlation between a truly good game and the reviews, particularly when using meta ranking sites, it doesn't always match up. Take Black & White, for example, which was highly rated by the press. Two years later, B&W was lauded at by the very same magazines for its overwhelming boredom. Or Deus Ex 2, which also received comparetively high scores from the media but among fans and consumers hurt the Ion Storm brand far more than it helped? Good reviews does not always equal quality. More importantly, ti doesn't always equal sales either, and quite practically that's what Jason Hall should be most concerned about. Would more people have bought Enter the Matrix had it been a decent game? Probably. Does Enter the Matrix hurt the next Matrix game? Unarguably. But you can't chart the quality of a game with game reviews alone. Relying on those is too simplistic, and too impractical.
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?
Enter the Matrix is a good example why this is a good idea. Atari could have put anything out and earned a fortune. In fact this is done with many brands - back in my gaming hay day THQ were infamous for this.
It's a great idea, as it protects the brand by discouraging game publishers trying to make a quick buck.
This is a unsubtle way of shifting even more of the financial risk of a project onto the developer rather than the publisher, especially the smaller teams who are relying on any profits to keep the place running for another six months. Anyone who finds this clause presented to them in a contract should make sure there are counter measures against the publisher imposing any of the following:
- 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.
Who can forget the insanely high review that Gamepro gave to "Street Fighter II: Special Championship Edition" for the Genesis? I remember that sparking a whole slew of conspiracy theories that Gamepro was paid off by Capcom. Can you imagine the reprecussions of a reviewer who happens to disagree with most reviewers on a game now that future royalties are on the line? It would give the payoff conspiracy theories a lot more credibility since there would be a concrete link between the review and the revenue the game generates.
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.
He's not actually paying for good reviews. He's charging for bad reviews. There is a big difference. Nearly all games these days recieve a 70% or higher. A truly atrocious game like UFC has earned a 61% on metacritic. Resident Evil: Outbreak even breaks above 70%.
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...
The ______ Agenda