WB Takes a Stand

[Boner Kawanger 0]

Warner Bros. will start raising royalty fees for games that make a mockery of its properties.

 

Warner Bros. Interactive hopes that by charging game publishers higher royalty fees for not making good games based on WB intellectual properties, the traditional bad movie game and other similar licensed games can be avoided.

 

The WB will refer to popular game review websites (such as Game Rankings) to determine whether or not a licensed game reaches a certain rating level, 70% to be precise. If the game is bad enough to get under this score, publishers will be be penalized with an increase in royalty payments to the licensor.

 

This might seem like a good idea to Warner, and other holders of big-name licenses, but there are those that disagree. One of the most obvious games that would contradict this would be Enter the Matrix, and publisher Atari. While the game sold millions of copies riding the success of the movies, the game was a stinker:

 

"We sold four million copies. That's $250 million worldwide," declares Bruno Bonnell, Atari's chairman and CEO. "That's what a big major motion picture makes. And Warner Bros. would penalize us because we didn't achieve 70%? Are they joking?"

 

But [Warner Bros.] would only comment that "sales don't equal quality."

 

It's not known if or when other license holders are considering implementing a similar program, or if other game publishers would consider agreeing to this sort of deal. For the full article, including some arguments from the publisher's side, click here.

 

Credit: Planet Gamecube and probably a lot of other game sites

 

Well, color me impressed. I can't believe this huge company actually cares about making good games. And I love the irony of Atari sticking up for games based on movies. Something ExTra funny about that one.

 

This still doesn't make up for your crappy Catwoman movie, though, WB.

[Guest FrigidSoul]

"We sold four million copies. That's $250 million worldwide," declares Bruno Bonnell, Atari's chairman and CEO. "That's what a big major motion picture makes. And Warner Bros. would penalize us because we didn't achieve 70%? Are they joking?"

 

Roughly translated this means...

 

"But to do that we would have to take time and effort. That's time we don't have between swimming in our pools full of money and effort we don't have as we exhausted it making crap look good."

 

To be honest I always felt that making a game look really, really good in commercials and then having it suck the big fat one should be grounds for false advertising. They're advertising entertainment that just isn't there.

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

I think that while the idea is good in its intentions, they are basically saying that if a few cynics doesn't like a game, the developers are penalized for it. That dude who worked for Disney had a good point, the reviewers sometimes don't necessarily know how to review certain games like games marketed to the young kids or so forth. It's just going to break down a lot of agreements between the studios and developers.

[Guest Smues]

"We sold four million copies. That's $250 million worldwide," declares Bruno Bonnell, Atari's chairman and CEO. "That's what a big major motion picture makes. And Warner Bros. would penalize us because we didn't achieve 70%? Are they joking?"

The average selling price for Enter The Matrix was $62.50??? Am I missing something here? Every copy I saw started at about $49.99, and very very very quickly was reduced to much much less.

[Lightning Flik 0]

"We sold four million copies. That's $250 million worldwide," declares Bruno Bonnell, Atari's chairman and CEO. "That's what a big major motion picture makes. And Warner Bros. would penalize us because we didn't achieve 70%? Are they joking?"

The average selling price for Enter The Matrix was $62.50??? Am I missing something here? Every copy I saw started at about $49.99, and very very very quickly was reduced to much much less.

You've also got to take in every other country's dollar. We usually have a mark up of about $20-30 Canadian on gaming prices.

 

If you factor in the different dollars, then yes, it is possible for it to occur.

[The Metal Maniac 0]

Atari makes a good point - if they can make a game and convince a zillion people to buy it, regardless of the quality involved, why should they be punished for that?

 

I understand WB's intentions, but it seems totally unfair to punish people who could be making them damn good money just because some people online didn't like the game.

[Lightning Flik 0]

Atari makes a good point - if they can make a game and convince a zillion people to buy it, regardless of the quality involved, why should they be punished for that?

 

I understand WB's intentions, but it seems totally unfair to punish people who could be making them damn good money just because some people online didn't like the game.

Um... Yes, Atari made a zillion people buy it. However, do you know how fast you alienate your consumers if you pull off that shit? Pretty badly. I think WB really doesn't want to do that.

 

...then again, we've got that Catwoman movie that's a fucking joke.

 

BTW, did you like Enter The Matrix? What? You did? Well it doesn't matter what you felt about the game. Why? Because you are someone who is online voicing his opinion on the subject, right here and now. Therefore, because you are one of the "some people" who did or didn't like it, your opinion is therefore invalid.

 

If WB is intending on doing this, then they should probably use (and probably are) Gamerankings.com. It takes the ratings of every place that has done a review (that has done a review on the game and has notified the site about it) and compiles it into an average score.

 

Best way to get it done.

[AndrewTS 0]

The only problem here is that you need to find a reliable barometer of quality. A quality control board of real gamers would be a far more accurate assessment of quality than some online reviewers.

 

Enter the Matrix is just like the movies--neither deserved to be successes but were anyway. Whatever.

 

However, I'd like to see it stuck to companies like Acclaim.

 

If WB is intending on doing this, then they should probably use (and probably are) Gamerankings.com. It takes the ratings of every place that has done a review (that has done a review on the game and has notified the site about it) and compiles it into an average score.

 

Best way to get it done.

 

Oh, I see. I never checked out Gamerankings so I didn't know.

 

On the downside, I expect this to work out kind of like high school kids doing just enough to get a C. Unfortunately, that STILL would be an improvement as licensed games go.

 

Enter the Matrix wasn't quite as bad as ET, but it deserved a similar vomiting-up by the game community.

 

However, a company bearing the Atari name doesn't give a shit about quality. Color me surprised.

[The Metal Maniac 0]

Actually, I've only ever played the game for like, 10 minutes.

 

I was unaware of what exactly Game Rankings is...now I see that they'll be using a fair sorce to rate the games, but I still figure that if Atari is making them money, they shouldn't be punishing them for it.

 

I dunno, it just seems to me that this would easily lead to people (by which I mean people who make such products) getting pissed off at WB, and not wanting to market their products, leaving WB in a bit of a lurch. Of course, they probably have enough stuff to liscence that that'd never become a problem, but hey.

[AndrewTS 0]

I dunno, it just seems to me that this would easily lead to people (by which I mean people who make such products) getting pissed off at WB, and not wanting to market their products, leaving WB in a bit of a lurch. Of course, they probably have enough stuff to liscence that that'd never become a problem, but hey.

If they hire quality developers, this won't be a problem. They might piss off Acclaim or some one. Big f'n deal.

[The Metal Maniac 0]

Strong point.

 

I may need to re-think this one...

[AndrewTS 0]

Plus, except for, say, 411Games, 70% isn't really that hard to achieve. Any competent game, even if rather unoriginal or somewhat flawed, can reach that. All they're doing is setting a realistic goal and expecting developers to comply.

 

Now, if WB will apply it to the movies they make we'll have something. Not bloody likely, though.

[Lightning Flik 0]

The only problem here is that you need to find a reliable barometer of quality.  A quality control board of real gamers would be a far more accurate assessment of quality than some online reviewers. 

 

Enter the Matrix is just like the movies--neither deserved to be successes but were anyway.  Whatever.

 

However, I'd like to see it stuck to companies like Acclaim.

 

If WB is intending on doing this, then they should probably use (and probably are) Gamerankings.com. It takes the ratings of every place that has done a review (that has done a review on the game and has notified the site about it) and compiles it into an average score.

 

Best way to get it done.

 

Oh, I see. I never checked out Gamerankings so I didn't know.

 

On the downside, I expect this to work out kind of like high school kids doing just enough to get a C. Unfortunately, that STILL would be an improvement as licensed games go.

 

Enter the Matrix wasn't quite as bad as ET, but it deserved a similar vomiting-up by the game community.

 

However, a company bearing the Atari name doesn't give a shit about quality. Color me surprised.

The first Matrix should've stood alone. It would've been fine if it had, and not been tarnished by any of the mockery that was accomplished by the sequels, its game, and The Animatrix.

 

It all depends on what the reviewers use for rankings, as they probably will use Gamerankings as their database (why else say, average score of 70% for reviews, unless that was how they were doing it). Most reviews that are placed onto Gamerankings system are of the out of 5 rankings. Therefore, it is quite easy for a game to crash and burn. However, since the out of 5 ratings usually get .5 it kinda hacks the process. So we may see that problem, may not. But at least someone is making the effort to get us better games.

 

Actually, Atari saying that they would rather give the company like WB cash, instead of Quality product, probably did not sit well with many gamers. I know hearing that, it'll make me question the next Atari product I purchase.

 

Actually, I've only ever played the game for like, 10 minutes.

 

I was unaware of what exactly Game Rankings is...now I see that they'll be using a fair sorce to rate the games, but I still figure that if Atari is making them money, they shouldn't be punishing them for it.

 

I dunno, it just seems to me that this would easily lead to people (by which I mean people who make such products) getting pissed off at WB, and not wanting to market their products, leaving WB in a bit of a lurch. Of course, they probably have enough stuff to liscence that that'd never become a problem, but hey.

Don't worry about Enter The Matrix, I couldn't stand more than 30 minutes myself. Then again, I stopped playing Jet Li's latest game when its controls were just plan awful.

 

Considering it is just an average of ratings of reviews, it is very fair. If you'd like to look at a certain review (only via site, magazine reviews you need to buy the magazines), you can check. This way you can fairly figure out which person has given a fair judged look at the game.

 

Actually, on the contrary. If a company that was licensing stuff to me was more concerned about quality rather than quantity, I'd rather bring out the quality, as the games that have the quality are remembered much better than the games of quantity. Look at many of the "cult" classics that have come along, that use this philosophy. How many of those can you recall knowing much about the game? Compare that to "Enter The Matrix". Which would you recall better? That impression is what licensing/producers should be looking for. If you can tap into a core audience and give them something to make them continually come back to you, then you need not have to make the one shop stop game that gets you a shitload of cash. You make more with the confidence of the consumer behind you and willing to be there for all your products.

[AndrewTS 0]

An interesting look at it from a 411 Games article--addressing some of the fears I had:

 

http://411mania.com/games/columns/article....columns_id=2535

 

"The movie studio has had it with sub-standard games based on movies, and has decided to do something about it. From now on, Warner Bros. will be looking at the reviews that these games get. If the median score is below 70 percent for any of these games, the studio will increase their royalty rates to the publisher that created the game. The lower the median score, the more WB will charge.

 

There's a LOT that goes into this. First, and most obviously, what took so long? An announcement like this has been long overdue, and give credit to Warner Bros. for admitting how important these games are to the overall movie packages that are released today. Look for other studios to follow the lead of the WB once they see how well this works.

 

The next piece is the publishers and developers. These people will be under such stress to please WB that they might forget to innovate and instead pander to the masses. Will Warner be okay with a total sellout game for a movie where that kind of game isn't really justified? There's a chance that this edict will backfire on the WB because companies might try too hard. But that's not likely.

 

The third, last, and perhaps most important element here - and this is one that the Kliq have been kicking around all day - is the integrity of reviewers. Anyone who visits 411 Games regularly know that we consider 5 the average, so a 7 rating for a game is something that's considerably above average. And these people also know that this is not how business is conducted elsewhere. At the big (i.e. on the take) sites and in the big (i.e. on the take) publications, 7 is average and a game has to really blow to rank below a 7.

 

First, how will a game ever dip below a 7 if enough pockets are lined to offset those reviewers with integrity who will call it like it is? Second, how many more companies will grease the palms of those with the opinions who matter if thousands of dollars are on the line? We could be headed toward a total state of chaos when it comes to honest reviewing. Chances are that some companies won't improve their games at all, instead relying on payouts to big-name magazines and websites to heap praise upon praise on an average game.

 

This is one very real weakness of Warner Bros. relying on sites like GameRankings to make decisions for them. WB needs to hire some people to test these games out and determine if they're of a good enough quality. Because, as we all know, some reviews, reviewers, and the sites that host these reviews and reviewers, simply cannot be trusted.

 

I think we'll see a few things happen in the aftermath of this announcement. First, we'll see a ton of other movie studios implement similar plans. Secondly, we'll see a decent - but not spectacular - improvement in the quality of the games. Lastly, we'll see some unscrupulous companies attempt to buy a better ranking rather than create a better game. And this won't be the worst thing. At least we'll see who's got integrity and who's selling out. Thanks to the WB for making this happen."

 

So on second thought, a quality control board of gamers probably would be more reliable. Heaven knows how much Rockstar pressures game magazines to give their games the ratings they think they deserve. A similar situation could occur here.

[Lightning Flik 0]

If we are going to create a "true" quality control board for gamers, we'd need an intangible group of people with no outside agendas and not able to be bought. The chances of that are about the same as finding some few folks exactly like Link (Legend of Zelda). Just ain't happening. Besides, who exactly does this board respond to in terms of regulation? If it is a seperate entity, it'll be treated as a joke thanks to the ESRB. If it responds to the three major console systems and the PC, then we start having people sway their votes to the preferred system of choice or the one buying their ratings.

 

Yes, the above situation isn't a good thing to happen. Sadly, it is also apart of what is going on in the real world with other reviews that happen every time, practically daily. It just gets the video gaming industry up to date.

[AndrewTS 0]

If it is a seperate entity, it'll be treated as a joke thanks to the ESRB.

 

What the hell does this even mean? The ESRB rates, you know, potentially offensive content in games, not game quality.

 

Just ain't happening. Besides, who exactly does this board respond to in terms of regulation?...If we are going to create a "true" quality control board for gamers, we'd need an intangible group of people with no outside agendas and not able to be bought.

 

My suggestion would be a group employed by the publisher (WBI), occasionally rotated, and with identities unknown to the outside. Confidentiality agreements and so forth. Exactly how to recruit them would be the issue. A mix of casual, hardcore, and maybe former game magazine reviewers might work.

 

Game mags have their reviewers usually use their real names and provide contact info. You don't see a difference?

 

If it responds to the three major console systems and the PC, then we start having people sway their votes to the preferred system of choice or the one buying their ratings.

 

If you have a multi-console game, except for the GBA it's the same flippin' game except for hardware limitations. If you have a PS2 and an X-Box, generally you'd be an idiot to buy a multi-console game on PS2. The exceptions would be something like Soul Calibur II, with exclusive features. If there's a difference between multi-console games enough to dip below the minimum, then the games overall were borderline to begin with, right?

 

Although the GBA licensed movie games ALWAYS suck. I've yet to be informed of an exception. Besides, I was suggesting using the idea in conjunction with the current plan illustrated here. Obviously it's not perfect, but it's a start.

 

It's fine to try to foresee complications the situation brings, but don't invent them when they aren't quite there.

 

The ESRB...?!?

[Lightning Flik 0]

If it is a seperate entity, it'll be treated as a joke thanks to the ESRB.

 

What the hell does this even mean? The ESRB rates, you know, potentially offensive content in games, not game quality.

 

And how often is it badly mistaken on what should be rated as E, T or M? Plenty of games have gotten the wrong type of rating, just because of a single thing in the game. That's what I mean.

 

This new system to be given credentials to games or whatever will be looked at with distrust and with negativity.

 

Just ain't happening. Besides, who exactly does this board respond to in terms of regulation?...If we are going to create a "true" quality control board for gamers, we'd need an intangible group of people with no outside agendas and not able to be bought.

 

My suggestion would be a group employed by the publisher (WBI), occasionally rotated, and with identities unknown to the outside. Confidentiality agreements and so forth. Exactly how to recruit them would be the issue. A mix of casual, hardcore, and maybe former game magazine reviewers might work.

 

Game mags have their reviewers usually use their real names and provide contact info. You don't see a difference?

 

That actually would be the best of every world, but you won't get anyone to commit to that because of confliction of interests between the publisher (they'd like the game to actually be good), the reviewers themselves (if they don't like a certain genre, they can slam it good) and of course the game developers (who just want to make a ton of money, really).

 

I'm not sure what the last part was trying to mean. Explain, because I obviously am missing something this late at night.

 

If it responds to the three major console systems and the PC, then we start having people sway their votes to the preferred system of choice or the one buying their ratings.

 

If you have a multi-console game, except for the GBA it's the same flippin' game except for hardware limitations. If you have a PS2 and an X-Box, generally you'd be an idiot to buy a multi-console game on PS2. The exceptions would be something like Soul Calibur II, with exclusive features. If there's a difference between multi-console games enough to dip below the minimum, then the games overall were borderline to begin with, right?

 

True. But I was more meaning, if there is an RPG on the XBox and an RPG on the PS2, do you know how many RPG fans will actually give the RPG on the PS2 a better score than the XBox RPG, just because it is on the PS2? Or an XBox fan hailing an RPG as the greatest RPG ever, even though it really is just pretty damn good.

 

...and yes, I basically just named the two big ones on both systems, and I will now have to defend that. But that's another thread for another time.

 

Although the GBA licensed movie games ALWAYS suck.  I've yet to be informed of an exception.

 

Never ever consider a GBA licensed movie game to be good. They are few and far inbetween because too much is tried with so little.

 

Besides, I was suggesting using the idea in conjunction with the current plan illustrated here.  Obviously it's not perfect, but it's a start.

 

^ I'd answer that, but down there v

 

It's fine to try to foresee complications the situation brings, but don't invent them when they aren't quite there.

 

Andrew, you just said that it isn't perfect. Obviously, the complications I speak of are apart of what isn't perfect. You have to think of these things to make sure you can make this plan work at least to the point where there isn't any question about how it goes about it.

 

The ESRB...?!?

 

...I couldn't think of the initials for the system being used for the rating system for games.

Edited May 27, 2004 by Lightning Flik

[AndrewTS 0]

And how often is it badly mistaken on what should be rated as E, T or M? Plenty of games have gotten the wrong type of rating, just because of a single thing in the game. That's what I mean.

 

You tell me, because I have no idea how the hell this is relevant. You say that is if this would be published, when in fact the board's reviews would only be reported to the publisher itself.

 

Plus this is hardly a radical idea. Just about ever respected developer has an internal quality control board. Companies like Acclaim don't. This is simply imposing one on them if they want to develop games for WBI.

 

This new system to be given credentials to games or whatever will be looked at with distrust and with negativity.

 

Again. Who the hell would see it besides WBI? It wouldn't be published.

 

That actually would be the best of every world, but you won't get anyone to commit to that because of confliction of interests between the publisher (they'd like the game to actually be good), the reviewers themselves (if they don't like a certain genre, they can slam it good) and of course the game developers (who just want to make a ton of money, really).

 

So the developer won't agree to it at the risk of making a shitty game, so instead of taking the gamble and urging the programmers to do a good job, they'll risk losing ALL the revenue that they could have gotten. Yeah, I'm sure they'd do that.

 

As for the reviewers themselves, we're talking the sort competent enough to give a certain game it's props regardless of the genre (so naturally, ignore the GI ratings ). Plus it wouldn't be the only criteria used to rate it, after all.

 

If say, 2 out of 7 hate a certain game because of its genre, is that really going to be a major issue to the publisher?

 

I'm not sure what the last part was trying to mean. Explain, because I obviously am missing something this late at night.

 

It's easy to contact magazines for bribes.

 

Although you forget that the HUGE PENALTY for making these shitty games isn't a termination of the license, but rather a raise in the licensing fees. For all the bribes the developers would have to throw around, it would be probably around the same cost to throw in the extra month or two of development. All they have to accomplish is the frankly-average score of 70%. That's not too damn hard. Basically they're saying that the least they'll accept is mediocre. Damn those high standards!!

 

If they company can't do that, they shouldn't be making games in the first place. If they can't do it, they'll have to pay increased licensing fees. Big whoop. I guarantee you if it had already happened and Enter the Matrix came out, Atari still would have made a sizeable profit anyway.

 

Seriously, what's so damn radical about this? It's a very conservative at best approach, and if anything it's merely setting a minimum bar of quality where previously there was none.

 

True. But I was more meaning, if there is an RPG on the XBox and an RPG on the PS2, do you know how many RPG fans will actually give the RPG on the PS2 a better score than the XBox RPG, just because it is on the PS2? Or an XBox fan hailing an RPG as the greatest RPG ever, even though it really is just pretty damn good.

 

X-Box has an RPG besides KotoR?!

 

The board's ratings would not be published, and if this hypothetical RPG was just "pretty damn good" then it would exceed the 70%, correct? As for the PS2 version of an RPG over the X-Box--what moron would do that unless the X-Box version was programmed poorly? And what score is better is moot, because if the different is enough for them to hover around 70%, they were both borderline in the first place. If a game that is essentially the same on both systems gets 69% for one and 90% on the other, that'd be damn suspicious, wouldn't it? What's the issue?

 

...and yes, I basically just named the two big ones on both systems, and I will now have to defend that. But that's another thread for another time.

 

 

 

Never ever consider a GBA licensed movie game to be good. They are few and far inbetween because too much is tried with so little.

 

I was asking for the sake of argument for one to be named. I can't think of a single one. More often than not they're WORSE than the console versions (except for Crouching Tiger), which in and of itself is sad.

 

Andrew, you just said that it isn't perfect. Obviously, the complications I speak of are apart of what isn't perfect. You have to think of these things to make sure you can make this plan work at least to the point where there isn't any question about how it goes about it.

 

Most of your concerns I don't see the problem about.

[Black Lushus 0]

if a movie company pays to have a game made based on their movies, don't they deserve to be given a game that is not universally panned? who wants to pay for crap? apparently some of you already have with the Matrix game...does that make YOU happy? No...so why should WB be happy with what Atari gave them? I understand they make bad movies, but look at it from that aspect...you pay for something, you want good results...

[k thx 0]

In my view, a good game can open up a whole new market to a film. Just look at Goldeneye. I know a fair few people who didn't see the movie until after they played the game, purely because the game was so good.

[The Metal Maniac 0]

I'm not sure exactly how games are liscenced, but do WB (and various other companies) pay the video game companies to make the games, or do the video game companies have to buy the rights to make the game from WB (or whoever else)?

 

I thought it was the latter, though I'm not really sure.

[Ripper 0]

WB isn't taking a stand. This is nothing more than a pubicity stunt.

 

Wb knows their games suck, they come out saying "We won't stand for this!! We don't care about profits!!! We care about the quality of the games"(which should be a dead give away about how full of shit they are), release a new game that will be assumed good because the developer fears teh mighty WB, they flood boards with positive reviews and thier sales go up.

[Guest MikeSC]

WB isn't taking a stand. This is nothing more than a pubicity stunt.

 

Wb knows their games suck, they come out saying "We won't stand for this!! We don't care about profits!!! We care about the quality of the games"(which should be a dead give away about how full of shit they are), release a new game that will be assumed good because the developer fears teh mighty WB, they flood boards with positive reviews and thier sales go up.

Will somebody penalize WB when their movies end up sucking?

 

Because whomever was behind the last two Matrix movies owes me some cash.

-=Mike

[LaParkaYourCar 0]

Am I the only one who liked "Enter the Matrix"?? I thought it was a fun game.

[BUTT 0]

Enter the Matrix wasn't that bad, but it didn't deserve the level of hype it got. Atari promoted it as a game which would change video games forever, and it was nothing more than a regular 3rd-person action game with a bad camera, subpar controls, and a number of glitches. Then again, if you're a Matrix fan (which I'm not), I guess you probably would like it more.

[LaParkaYourCar 0]

Well that's the odd thing...I'm not a big Matrix fan, but I still liked the game.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

It should be interesting to see a "4" movie turned into a "7" game.

 

The only flaw with this is that reviews will say something like "You'll probably only like this if you are a fan of "X" movie, otherwise stay clear of this" and give it a bad rating. Well, I never really saw why games based on movies should be appealing to anyone other than fans of the movie. Chances are, if you hate the movie or didn't see it, you won't be interested in the game. People who have an interest in the movie will probably find the game a lot better than the reviewer did.

 

I can see this happening with other liscenses (sports coming to mind quickly).

[AndrewTS 0]

"I'm not sure exactly how games are liscenced, but do WB (and various other companies) pay the video game companies to make the games, or do the video game companies have to buy the rights to make the game from WB (or whoever else)?

 

I thought it was the latter, though I'm not really sure."

 

The game companies pay for the right to use the licenses in their games.

[Guest pinnacleofallthingsmanly]

This is a load of shit all around. Atari is full of shit if they think people wouldn't have bought a Matrix game made by anyone. I doubt the people that make the shitty little Olsen twins games walk around with their chests puffed out because they're making the girls some money. People will buy shitty games if the right thing is on the cover.

 

Wb is full of shit because this is more about money than integrity. If they don't want a shitty product, why go to the highest bidder? All that means is that if someone wants to fuck up a license, they just have to pay more to do it. If they were really serious they would go about this completely differently.

[AndrewTS 0]

--because I'm so sure that Warner Bros. Interactive is run by the same people as the whole Warner Bros. empire. Seriously, that's probably as tough as they could get because the higher-ups may have only been talked into going that far.