Jump to content

Lower reviews = Higher Royalties?

cane corso

Recommended Posts

Full article here


Games based on Warner Bros. licenses must achieve at least a 70% rating, or incur an increase in royalty rates.


"An escalating royalty rate kicks in to help compensate us for the brand damage that's taking place," says Hall. "The further away from 70% 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."


Just curious what your thoughts were on this. Maybe it's already been discussed and I missed it? Nonetheless, I thought it was an interesting read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using gamerankings.com as a barometer of quality is off as there's no quality threshold of the sites or the bias of each individual reviewer/site taken into consideration. As many sites don't know how to use their full 0-100% scale, picking 70 is a very arbitrary number, as is which sites GR uses to calculate its average.


The article linked gives a false impression of the development process of the average big licenced title by suggesting the licencesor (WB) should be shocked that a game is shoddy & below par when it's released. In reality, the licencesor usually has fairly regular reviews of a project in development (say, every quarterly or six months) as well as input on how their properties are used (e.g. how a character looks in-game, what a character does etc) & has a chance to see the progress of the game.


As I said elsewhere, will Warner be offering to pay EA extra cash when Catwoman rates less than 70% on RottenTomatoes? I suspect not.


I understand where they're coming from, and this is a public gesture by the new boss to show he's trying to turn things around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, now you mention it, why shouldn't EA some some refund on their royalty payments, when Catwoman ineviatably turns out to be a box-office flop of Cutthroat Island proportions?


I agree there. Think it wil be a big time flop. Also,while I love the Batman mythos, I have just a passing interest in this film. (and it is all Helle Berry :) )


On topic, I just don't see how this would be fair. Like dogbert says,most,if not all of the websites mentioned don't know how to use their scale. Even EGM has to constanly explain that a 5.0 score for their review just means it is supposedly average. Maybe if they selected one place - it could work,but I wouldn't do it.


Time would be another issue. Enter The Matrix was released to coincide with the 2nd Matrix film. If Atari (IMHO) had a few more months to work on the game,there would have been a whole lot less bugs,crashes & whatnot. Warner would have to understand in order to get the best possible game,it might not be able to get a film,stone cold lock of a release date.


It is also kinda funny how both Warner & Atari are both mentioned. If you might recall,some many moons ago (just over 20 years) the debacle that was the Atari 2600 game E.T. You know,the one that had to be done in like 4 weeks from when they signed the agreement with Speilberg till the game needed to be done? The one that the game was so bad,most of the games are buried in a New Mexico landfill?


That one. And who owned Atari at the time? Warner Communications :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...