Warner Brothers Attempt to Implement Quality Control
Variable royalty rate scheme proposed.
Jason Hall, Senior President of Warner Brothers Interactive Entertainment, has recently proposed a scheme to change the way in which developers approach adaptation of its big name movie franchises. He wants to introduce a sliding scale of royalty charges according to what sort of scores licensed videogames receive from reviewers: the worse the game, the higher the payments. It’s an intriguing concept that reflects the increased role of branding within videogames.
If a game is to sell well off the back of a film, suggests Hall, it should be charged according to how it affects the reputation of that title. An undeniably superb game would have a positive effect on the brand, and would be rewarded, whilst a poor conversion with an adverse effect would be penalised.
However, this proposal is sure to be contested by developers. Review scores are entirely subjective and they don’t always accurately reflect sales figures. Atari’s use of Warner Brothers Interactive’s Enter The Matrix is a prime example. Enter The Matrix sold well, thanks to the immense hype surrounding the film, but generally scored sub 7/10 review scores. Bruno Bonnell, Atari’s CEO, has been one of the first to reject the idea out of hand. “ I will never, ever sign this sort of agreement, which effectively insults our business”, said Bonnell in an interview with The Hollywood Reporter.
Although this plan could have positive consequences for consumers, who would either receive better quality movie tie-ins, or fewer franchised titles (i.e., more completely original IP's) the chances are that the vast proportion of games developers will simply refuse to participate.
If a game is to sell well off the back of a film, suggests Hall, it should be charged according to how it affects the reputation of that title. An undeniably superb game would have a positive effect on the brand, and would be rewarded, whilst a poor conversion with an adverse effect would be penalised.
However, this proposal is sure to be contested by developers. Review scores are entirely subjective and they don’t always accurately reflect sales figures. Atari’s use of Warner Brothers Interactive’s Enter The Matrix is a prime example. Enter The Matrix sold well, thanks to the immense hype surrounding the film, but generally scored sub 7/10 review scores. Bruno Bonnell, Atari’s CEO, has been one of the first to reject the idea out of hand. “ I will never, ever sign this sort of agreement, which effectively insults our business”, said Bonnell in an interview with The Hollywood Reporter.
Although this plan could have positive consequences for consumers, who would either receive better quality movie tie-ins, or fewer franchised titles (i.e., more completely original IP's) the chances are that the vast proportion of games developers will simply refuse to participate.
Read More Like This
Comments
smagic 27 May 2004 10:49
1/9
Developers are probably fighting this because they won't be able to get away with releasing mediocre game. Sounds like a good thing to me i would rather see a select few of top notch games than piles of tosh any day. Booh Hoo for the developesrs but hurray for us.
Then again it could be argued that companies use the funds from these games to help produce some more innvoation in their more original games. Without any cash cows where are the funds going to come from?
Are games going to become more expensive due to added strain on the developer?
Would you pay more for a game if it was better or not?
In my opinion if this thing happens it could go either or both ways.
Then again it could be argued that companies use the funds from these games to help produce some more innvoation in their more original games. Without any cash cows where are the funds going to come from?
Are games going to become more expensive due to added strain on the developer?
Would you pay more for a game if it was better or not?
In my opinion if this thing happens it could go either or both ways.
DoctorDee 27 May 2004 11:03
2/9
smagic wrote:
>Developers are probably fighting this because
>they won't be able to get away with releasing
>mediocre game.
Not necessarily so. They'll still release the same mundane games they release today, but the publishers will offer exclusive deals, take the journalists on holiday and and threaten to pull their advertising if they don't get good scores.
Plus, who pays the additional fees, the publishers, who pressure the developers into watering down the games, or the developers who have to do what they are told.
Plus, in these days of increasing globularization, isn't it usually a different arm of the same company who is the licensor and licensee.
SO this just stinks of a way of publishers (who are licencor and licensee) screwing developers both ways.
>In my opinion if this thing happens it could go
>either or both ways.
You can pretty much guarantee it'll go the way the publishers want.
>Developers are probably fighting this because
>they won't be able to get away with releasing
>mediocre game.
Not necessarily so. They'll still release the same mundane games they release today, but the publishers will offer exclusive deals, take the journalists on holiday and and threaten to pull their advertising if they don't get good scores.
Plus, who pays the additional fees, the publishers, who pressure the developers into watering down the games, or the developers who have to do what they are told.
Plus, in these days of increasing globularization, isn't it usually a different arm of the same company who is the licensor and licensee.
SO this just stinks of a way of publishers (who are licencor and licensee) screwing developers both ways.
>In my opinion if this thing happens it could go
>either or both ways.
You can pretty much guarantee it'll go the way the publishers want.
more comments below our sponsor's message
SPInGSPOnG 27 May 2004 11:34
3/9
smagic wrote:
>Developers are probably fighting this because
>they won't be able to get away with releasing
>mediocre game.
Developers are fighting this because they are going to get reamed up the arse by fat, rich arrogant movie companies and games publishers. And it would seem that the people who will "judge" this insane court are the games journalists, possibly the least reliable people imaginable.
If I wore a hat (and being an American, it would be a baseball cap) I'd take it off to Bruno Bonell for his stance on the matter. It's good to know that Atari (ne Infogrames) will stand up and fight for its right to continue producing mediocre film tie-ins. Hold on, I intended that to be a bit more supportive!!!
>Developers are probably fighting this because
>they won't be able to get away with releasing
>mediocre game.
Developers are fighting this because they are going to get reamed up the arse by fat, rich arrogant movie companies and games publishers. And it would seem that the people who will "judge" this insane court are the games journalists, possibly the least reliable people imaginable.
If I wore a hat (and being an American, it would be a baseball cap) I'd take it off to Bruno Bonell for his stance on the matter. It's good to know that Atari (ne Infogrames) will stand up and fight for its right to continue producing mediocre film tie-ins. Hold on, I intended that to be a bit more supportive!!!
smagic 27 May 2004 11:47
4/9
ok sorry for my ignorance...........
Brown Force 27 May 2004 13:22
5/9
Well I think this is good and bad. True it would mean more original games and less medicore licenced games. But what would stop producers just making original medicore cack. Then it would be harder to spot the cack titles then so in some ways it would suck even more for us.
And it would just increase the huge amount of pressure on reviewers of magazines and on places like IGN. There are only a select few magazines that give their honest opinions ignoring the pressure. But I belive if this happened reviewers would just all start being puppets to Publishers. And innevitbly be worse for us again.
So though it sounds a good idea, it would in the long term, just make things twice as bad for consumers.
And it would just increase the huge amount of pressure on reviewers of magazines and on places like IGN. There are only a select few magazines that give their honest opinions ignoring the pressure. But I belive if this happened reviewers would just all start being puppets to Publishers. And innevitbly be worse for us again.
So though it sounds a good idea, it would in the long term, just make things twice as bad for consumers.
sue_raas 27 May 2004 14:06
6/9
smagic wrote:
>ok sorry for my ignorance...........
you're not ignorant, just an ill-informed buffoon
>ok sorry for my ignorance...........
you're not ignorant, just an ill-informed buffoon
smagic 27 May 2004 14:14
7/9
well excuuuse me thats not very nice at all. Who shook your pram.
BUFFOON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BUFFOON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SPInGSPOnG 27 May 2004 14:26
8/9
Sue Raas wrote:
>>ok sorry for my ignorance...........
>
>you're not ignorant, just an ill-informed buffoon
Sue seems to be the ignorant one.
>>ok sorry for my ignorance...........
>
>you're not ignorant, just an ill-informed buffoon
Sue seems to be the ignorant one.
NiktheGreek 27 May 2004 15:46
9/9
Rod Todd wrote:
>Developers are fighting this because they are
>going to get reamed up the arse by fat, rich
>arrogant movie companies and games publishers.
>And it would seem that the people who will
>"judge" this insane court are the games
>journalists, possibly the least reliable people
>imaginable.
Well, with you being an American, I can understand your viewpoint. I've read EGM and other such magazines, and they're quite honestly worthless. That being said, many UK magazines haven't been much better recently. Witness the bandwagon against the 3D Sonic games (I won't go into detail here unless asked), and a recent worrying letter in Edge magazine that told of journalists using Gamerankings.com as a guide for fear of going against the grain.
The only way I could really see this working is if Time Warner were to approve only certain sources, but they'd likely pick US-based magazines, which I've already expressed my distaste for once.
Games journalism is actually the career I'm aiming at, and I certainly wouldn't like to be put under pressure by unscrupulous publishers trying to buy a 90%+ rating.
Whilst I'm all for measures to prevent shoddy cash-ins, this definitely isn't the right way to go about it.
>Developers are fighting this because they are
>going to get reamed up the arse by fat, rich
>arrogant movie companies and games publishers.
>And it would seem that the people who will
>"judge" this insane court are the games
>journalists, possibly the least reliable people
>imaginable.
Well, with you being an American, I can understand your viewpoint. I've read EGM and other such magazines, and they're quite honestly worthless. That being said, many UK magazines haven't been much better recently. Witness the bandwagon against the 3D Sonic games (I won't go into detail here unless asked), and a recent worrying letter in Edge magazine that told of journalists using Gamerankings.com as a guide for fear of going against the grain.
The only way I could really see this working is if Time Warner were to approve only certain sources, but they'd likely pick US-based magazines, which I've already expressed my distaste for once.
Games journalism is actually the career I'm aiming at, and I certainly wouldn't like to be put under pressure by unscrupulous publishers trying to buy a 90%+ rating.
Whilst I'm all for measures to prevent shoddy cash-ins, this definitely isn't the right way to go about it.