Support NeoGAF

[Naked Snake]

This is old news, and I don't know if it was discussed here before or not, but I just read it and found it quite interesting.


http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/action/enterthematrix/news_6099292.html

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 GameRankings.com, 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."

"the bad games are over" - Yeah right!

 

[xsarien]

That's fair, but on the other side, the license owner needs to agree to not rush the game to the point where the game will inevitably suck.

 

[FitzOfRage]

It was discussed before. I think the consensus was that people like the general idea, though they may need to work on the particulars of how exactly they set the good from the bad.

That's fair, but on the other side, the license owner needs to agree to not rush the game to the point where the game will inevitably suck.

It's not usually the license owner that rushes it, its the game company they licensed it to trying to cash in while the hype for the property is still pretty high. Enter the Matrix absolutely would not have sold as much as it did if it was released a year later.

 

[Fusebox]

I reckon if devs make a lousy low scoring game they should be forced to report to all the gamers that were really looking forward to playing and enjoying said title - put the fear of geek into them!

 

[Andy787]

Very old, and I don't disagree, but at the same time, movie companies need to be held responsible for the horrible movie adaptations of games that they themselves put out. The movie industry is just as guilty of making horrible versions of the other's properties, and their track record overall is probably even a bit worse; there are very good movie-based games, but though there are a few decent ones, the same can not be said of game-based movies, imo.

 

[cuccoo]

could this lead to publishers bribing reviewers?

 

[cvxfreak]

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?"

In other words, we don't care if we make a shitty game, we just want the money!

 

[Patrick Klepek]

you guys should check out the next issue of CGW for a more in-depth look at this story. i hear this really hott writer put it together.

 

[Wario64]

you guys should check out the next issue of CGW for a more in-depth look at this story. i hear this really hott writer put it together.

I'll be sure to look for it

 

[Patrick Klepek]

pages and pages and pages and pages of material never used in the story, either...maybe i can put it online sometime in the future

 

[ManDudeChild]

could this lead to publishers bribing reviewers?

Lead to? lol

 

[----]

I think it's a bad idea to directly tie the reviews that a game gets to the amount of money that the publisher gets for a number of reasons. That's just begging for the whole game review process to get more corrupted than it already is. If the game sells millions of copies the people who bought the game may be very happy with it. What appeals to game reviewers and what appeals to game buyers doesn't always coincide. I remember hearing an average joe talking to his friend about EtM in an elevator as though it was the greatest game he had ever played. If I was Warner Bros. I'd be a lot more upset with the people behind the horrible Matrix sequels than I would be with the people behind the Matrix video game. At least Enter the Matrix was a financial success, Matrix Revolutions was a critical and financial disappointment.

And let's not forget how much control the movie directors had over the game. Is it really fair to penalize game makers for making inferior games if the movie studio is controlling so much of what does and does not get put into the game? I wonder if the movie studios would agree to the same deal over movies based on video games. If Resident Evil 2 is a critical flop then Columbia owes Capcom a greater percentage of the box office receipts.