Hollywood and game makers are becoming wary of each other.

Hollywood against game makers.

Quote:

---

Warner Brothers to change game royalty fee structure based on review scores
by Glen Bayer

Warner Brothers will change its royalty fee structure based on review scores, according to VGPro.com.

Warner Bros. said it is unhappy with the stream of poor licensed games.

"The game industry has had its time to exploit movie studios all day long and to get away with producing inferior products," said Jason Hall, head of Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment. "But, with Warner Brothers, no more. Those days are over. And we mean it. This isn't just lip service. Honestly, the bad games are over."

As an incentive to third-party developers to develop quality products, royalty fees will be lower if games receive good review scores.

"An escalating royalty rate kicks in to help compensate us for the brand damage that's taking place," continued Hall. "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.

Bruno Bonnell, Atari's chairman and CEO, has responsed to Hall's statements by noting that the Atari-developed Enter the Matrix has sold four million copies, garnering $250 million worldwide.

"That's what a big major motion picture makes," said Bonnell. "And Warner Bros. would penalize us because we didn't achieve 70 percent? Are they joking? Are we proud of everything we do? In most cases, yes. Do we fail sometimes? Sometimes. Do we feel we have to pay because we fail and because the ratings reflect that? No, absolutely not."

---

Game Makers against hollywood

Quote:

---

Video Game Business Grows Wary of Hollywood
Sunday May 23 2:47 PM ET

Is the honeymoon over for Hollywood and the video game industry?

Over the last four years, movie studios and game companies have grown closer than ever, so much so that big-budget action movies like "Van Helsing" and "The Punisher" now almost demand a companion video game.

But game fans have grown restless at what they see as a lack of fresh ideas, observers say, while publishers have turned more cautious at the prospect of paying high license fees to take a risk on content they do not own.


What does your business need?
Website Domains Hosting
Ecommerce Leads Advice
At the same time, studios, most notably Warner Bros. and Walt Disney Co., are slowly moving to take back some control themselves, seeing the financial opportunities in owning a bigger piece of potential blockbuster games.

Last week's E3 industry trade show featured more than a few games spawned by movies, TV shows and comic books, including Activision Inc.'s "Shark Tale," based on the DreamWorks' upcoming animated film, and Acclaim Entertainment Inc.'s adaptation of DC Comics' "100 Bullets."

But the Entertainment Software Association also released a survey showing that about one-third of gamers would like to see fewer licensed titles, especially as technology expands the boundaries of what is possible.

"All of this creates an exciting prospect for game developers and publishers," Doug Lowenstein, president of the trade group, said recently. "What it means is that they will have the opportunity to launch a new era in game design and creativity."

SUCCESSES AND FAILURES

To be sure, some video game publishers have made fortunes from movie franchises. Electronic Arts Inc. has sold tens of millions of games based on "Harry Potter," "James Bond" and "Lord of the Rings," often developing them right alongside the films.

Likewise, THQ Inc. has generated hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue on licenses from the likes of Pixar Animation Studios Inc. and the Nickelodeon cable network, while Activision is expecting a blockbuster this summer in the next "Spider-Man" film.

But for every smash hit, there are disappointments like Atari Inc.'s "Terminator 3" or Acclaim's "Alias," which featured the likenesses of big Hollywood stars, but fell short of targets.

Popular reviews site GameSpot called "Terminator 3" a "rushed hack-job of a game" and said the "Alias" game was plagued by "sloppy execution."

"If we could make all original games and grab a large share in the industry, then that would be a no-brainer," said Kazumi Kitaue, chief executive of Konami Digital Entertainment.

But Kitaue, whose company is making a game based on the upcoming Disney film "King Arthur," also said that because of their built-in recognition factor, licensed games could be cheaper to market.

"Even for original titles, we need to market that title," he said.

While licensed titles have "a certain amount of embedded marketing power," Kitaue said, their costs aren't much different from original games after taking licensing fees into account.

NO GUARANTEES

Atari Chief Executive Bruno Bonnell told Reuters that unless a licensed game is released at the same time as the film that spawned it and features the likenesses of the movie's stars, there is no point in doing it.

"It is not a given that a great action movie turns into a great interactive game," he said.

For publishers too, there is the question of sharing in the success. Besides paying licensing fees up front, which can run into the tens of millions of dollars, there are usually royalties on each unit sold, cutting into profits and making success a question of volume.

And since the licenses are not permanent, a company can risk losing its most important games at almost any time.

"When you're licensing, you're essentially renting stuff," said David Zucker, chief executive of Midway Games Inc. .

Even Electronic Arts, which could coast for years on the successes it has had with licensed franchises and the potential it has with as-yet-unreleased licensed properties like "Batman" and "Catwoman," is pushing for more originality, recognizing that is what gamers really want.

"We're going to be starting to put more and more new ideas that have not been emulated by anyone into production," said Don Mattrick, president of EA's worldwide studios. (Additional reporting by Dai Wakabayashi)

---

Sadly most of the damage has been done.

Quote:

---

Do we fail sometimes? Sometimes. Do we feel we have to pay because we fail and because the ratings reflect that? No, absolutely not."

---

WTF!!!

Take some god damn responsibility for your self

if you dont have to pay because you fail then what fucking incentive do you have not to

OMFG!!!!! that pisses me off so much right there

Enter the Matrix was a god awful horrible piece of crap that was full of bugs and was rushed out the door just because a ton of people fell into the trap and bought it doesnt mean you should fucking pay for it

Whoa, that's rediculous. But I'm not too sure if this is a bad thing. This may force these developers to actually think of fresh ideas for these film to game conversions. Unlike Hunter: May Cry/Van Helsing, which brought absolutly nothing new to the table.

But on the other hand, it's about damn time studios stopped buying up these expensive liscences because of the name. It's about damn time to see developers wanting to work on original games. This will curb offspring of terrible games like the new Terminator 3 game. The first game was based off of a mediocre sequel (or threequel?) and sold and played terribly, now why in the hell would you come out with ANOTHER Terminator 3 movie, hell there isn't even another Terminator 3 being released! :curse:

I curse you movie liscenced games, I curse you as hard as I can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Damian79

Sadly most of the damage has been done.

---

damage to what!? :confused:

Look at the big licenses that got screwed over with this aswell as the good name of certain people. Like that Xbox Bruce Lee game, Bruce must be turning in his grave still for that wretched peice of work.

Originall the movie to game conversions were pretty good for the most part. Now gaming has become too license oriented, partly because of the appeal of said licenses especially if a company already has the rights to it. A lot of creativity has died because of it, a ridiculous turnover rate of sequels is occurring now. Too many devs have become comfortable using licenses to sell their games instead of actual content.

And far too many devs aren't willing to take risks due to the high costs of production(except for the rare few like Capcom with the likes of Tekki, Viewtiful Joe and Killer 7) so the same gameplay with tried and proven gameplay will make the profits.

I think that was one of the reasons why a lot of people here are excited at the prospect of the Nintendo DS, the industry is slowly dying and needs to offer something new to start it's climb back.

Hmmm...bodes well for Sega's Matrix game.

Let's name all the good movie games ever made...

Goldeneye 007
Terminator 2 (NES)
Lilo & Stich (GBA)
Aladdin (SNES & GBA)

eh...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shin Johnpv

Enter the Matrix was a god awful horrible piece of crap that was full of bugs and was rushed out the door just because a ton of people fell into the trap and bought it doesnt mean you should fucking pay for it

---

The sad is, is that they didn't they work on that game for four years?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roufuss

The sad is, is that they didn't they work on that game for four years?

---

And it ws made by the same people that developed Earthworm Jim... and EWJ is the shizzle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AstroBlue

Let's name all the good movie games ever made...

Goldeneye 007
Terminator 2 (NES)
Lilo & Stich (GBA)
Aladdin (SNES & GBA)

eh...

---

Don't forget teh Batmanz!!11
Batman Returns(SNES)
Batman(NES)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AstroBlue

Let's name all the good movie games ever made...

Goldeneye 007
Terminator 2 (NES)
Lilo & Stich (GBA)
Aladdin (SNES & GBA)

eh...

---

I found the Genesis Aladdin game to be better (surprise!). These were also good:

- Terminator (Sega CD)
- EA's LOTR games
- Batman Returns (SNES)
- Batman (NES)
- Rambo 3 (Genesis)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roufuss

The sad is, is that they didn't they work on that game for four years?

---

With a game engine that took them the previous four years to make.

I like the idea of videogame makers actually being forced to take responsiblity for producing shoddy products, because some movies do have worlds and characters that would be really fun to play around in, but are killed by publishers wanting to rush the game out the door as quickly as possible. Like the new Spider-man game has great potential, but I'm sure it will be rushed and half-assed like the previous one was to meet deadlines imposed by Activision.

Quote:

---

damage to what!?

---

People's expectations regarding licensed games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ammadeau

I like the idea of videogame makers actually being forced to take responsiblity for producing shoddy products

---

Why? Why should the videogame industry be held to a different standard than any other industry? Videogame makers already are held responsible for shoddy products -- it's called poor sales. It's not their fault we're stupid enough to eat this shit up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lithium

Why? Why should the videogame industry be held to a different standard than any other industry? Videogame makers already are held responsible for shoddy products -- it's called poor sales.

---

The Matrix.
Breath of Fire: Dragon Quarter


Good game =/= good sales.
Bad game =/= bad sales.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melf

I found the Genesis Aladdin game to be better (surprise!).

---

Yeah by GBA I meant Genesis (well MegaDrive since i'm Aussie). My brain farted... like... or something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Damian79

The Matrix.
Breath of Fire: Dragon Quarter


Good game =/= good sales.
Bad game =/= bad sales.

---

Uh yeah, and I'm saying we as consumers should be smart enough to discern the two. That's how capitalism works. Since we're not, the companies have every right to shovel crap at us. Hell, we're buying it right, who are we to complain?

Build a better mouse trap and they'll beat a path to your door-- Unless they're gamers.

This is stupid. I'm all for accountability, but I'd say Hollywood's being awfully one-sided. If they're going to hold videogames to a certain standard, then they should also hold themselves to it. If they expect a superior videogame, they'd better make a superior movie. If a pile of crap movie-to-game conversion like T3 is penalized, what about the other side of the coin? Like say, Haunted Mansion; the movie was utter shite and ensured that the game sat on shelves, despite being a pretty good game. Games like Van Helsing or Enter the Matrix shouldn't face penalties, because the experiences they delivered were right on par with the mediocrity of their movie brethren.

Also, if they're gonna expect a blockbuster game, they'd better make sure the resources for a blockbuster game are provided. Most liscenced games are crap because a) games usually aren't given a large budget in the first place, and even if they are, b) a lot of that budget is gone from the get-go from having to buy the liscense, and c) the devs are working on much tighter schedule and deadline than an original game would. If games are so important for Hollywood's image, then they should be offering their money and resources (Lord knows they have them in greater abundance) to the game makers, not the other way around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lithium

Uh yeah, and I'm saying we as consumers should be smart enough to discern the two. That's how capitalism works. Since we're not, the companies have every right to shovel crap at us. Hell, we're buying it right, who are we to complain?

Build a better mouse trap and they'll beat a path to your door-- Unless they're gamers.

---

Part of the problem comes from the reviewers aswell.

Games like Dungeon Seige and DK 64 scored extremely well despite being complete turds and a lot of games get preferential treatment, a lot of magazines like Hyper(in Australia) for example gets a few money hats from developers for their games to get scored slightly better.

Then there is the first impressions which casuals base their purchase on that are often decieving in videogames.

Off the top of my head, the impossibly hard "Batman and Robin" on the Genesis and "Aladin" on the Genny are the only movie game I can think of that deserve to live...

Meh, throw "Micky Mania" on the "live" pile as well, even though that wasn't a specific movie.

...this sounds a little like how Activision (?) sued Paramount Pictures because of how they destroyed the Star Trek franchise- hence rendering the ST game lisence worthless...

If Hollywood starts basing royalty rates on game review scores, that opens the door for game companies to bribe/heckle reviewers to give their games better scores than they otherwise would. Not that this doesn't happen already...

Quote:

---

Like say, Haunted Mansion; the movie was utter shite and ensured that the game sat on shelves, despite being a pretty good game.

---

Was it that bad? From the trailer it reeked of a "golden child" feel to it. While that movie wasn't spectacular by any means, it was good cheeesy fun. If Haunted mansion is similar, I don't see why it would be so bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bacon McShig

This is stupid. I'm all for accountability, but I'd say Hollywood's being awfully one-sided. If they're going to hold videogames to a certain standard, then they should also hold themselves to it. If they expect a superior videogame, they'd better make a superior movie. If a pile of crap movie-to-game conversion like T3 is penalized, what about the other side of the coin? Like say, Haunted Mansion; the movie was utter shite and ensured that the game sat on shelves, despite being a pretty good game. Games like Van Helsing or Enter the Matrix shouldn't face penalties, because the experiences they delivered were right on par with the mediocrity of their movie brethren.

Also, if they're gonna expect a blockbuster game, they'd better make sure the resources for a blockbuster game are provided. Most liscenced games are crap because a) games usually aren't given a large budget in the first place, and even if they are, b) a lot of that budget is gone from the get-go from having to buy the liscense, and c) the devs are working on much tighter schedule and deadline than an original game would. If games are so important for Hollywood's image, then they should be offering their money and resources (Lord knows they have them in greater abundance) to the game makers, not the other way around.

---

This is completely true. What was the average scores of Van Helsing the movie? Does this mean that the average score of the game has to be higher than that of the movie in some cases? This is really ass backwards.

As for that Atari quote, I have to agree... That game sold extremely well. Why should they be penalized by the studio because it's a piece of crap? You want to penalize Atari for putting out a shit game? Don't buy it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bacon McShig

This is stupid. I'm all for accountability, but I'd say Hollywood's being awfully one-sided. If they're going to hold videogames to a certain standard, then they should also hold themselves to it. If they expect a superior videogame, they'd better make a superior movie. If a pile of crap movie-to-game conversion like T3 is penalized, what about the other side of the coin? Like say, Haunted Mansion; the movie was utter shite and ensured that the game sat on shelves, despite being a pretty good game. Games like Van Helsing or Enter the Matrix shouldn't face penalties, because the experiences they delivered were right on par with the mediocrity of their movie brethren.

---

I was just going to bring this up. It's funny that Hollywood wants to bag on video game companies for making crap video games from movies, when Hollywood constantly makes crap movies from video games.

Uwe Boll would owe Sega trillions for the House of the Dead movie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AstroBlue

Let's name all the good movie games ever made...

Goldeneye 007
Terminator 2 (NES)
Lilo & Stich (GBA)
Aladdin (SNES & GBA)

eh...

---

You mention the Mediocre SNES and GBA Aladdin games but don't mention the spectacular Genesis game made by Shiny?

YUO ARE NINTENDO BAISED!!!!!1 SEGA DUZ WHAT NINTENDONT!!!!!!111 HOMAX!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AstroBlue

Yeah by GBA I meant Genesis (well MegaDrive since i'm Aussie). My brain farted... like... or something.

---

Oops

Lithium's already touched on this but why should Atari be punished for making Enter the Matrix? That game made WB dumptrucks of money, which, regardless of what one's Marxist English prof would have one believe, is what drives this industry.

There's no way this will stand if it goes to court.

Lithium's already touched on this but why should Atari be punished for making Enter the Matrix? That game made WB dumptrucks of money, which, regardless of what one's Marxist English prof would have one believe, is what drives this industry.

There's no way this will stand if it goes to court.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Meach

Lithium's already touched on this but why should Atari be punished for making Enter the Matrix? That game made WB dumptrucks of money, which, regardless of what one's Marxist English prof would have one believe, is what drives this industry.

There's no way this will stand if it goes to court.

---

Because, shitty games tarnish the public's perception of the license, and in a larger sense, the industry. Using brand names to sell tons of crappy games is what nearly killed consumer confidence in the industry during the 80's. I'm not suggesting that will ever repeat itself, but stricter quality contol is never a bad thing.

How many licensed games sell like Enter the Matrix? Not too many. If a better game had been presented with the Matrix license attached it would have been just as good. You can't call Enter the Matrix anything but living off of the name of a famous franchise, which fans were hungry to have more of.

There's nothing wrong with publishers being stronghanded into taking the time to push their developers to make great pieces of work. It's about brand image, not just sales. Movie studios and companies need to do some research before handing out their properties as well. Acclaim may do well in the markets (or whatever), but any gamer who knows the industry would tell you how shitty Acclaim is... they have a reputation for shit quality games.

It's a good idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rezo

People's expectations regarding licensed games.

---

i dont think it can get any worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Meach

Lithium's already touched on this but why should Atari be punished for making Enter the Matrix? That game made WB dumptrucks of money, which, regardless of what one's Marxist English prof would have one believe, is what drives this industry.

There's no way this will stand if it goes to court.

---

sure this one sold well but was horrible i highly doubt a sequel will do anywhere near as well

now if they had actually made a decent game the first time it might have sold well for the next game too its about looking at long term investments and not just the here and now

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sunshine

How many licensed games sell like Enter the Matrix? Not too many. If a better game had been presented with the Matrix license attached it would have been just as good. You can't call Enter the Matrix anything but living off of the name of a famous franchise, which fans were hungry to have more of.

There's nothing wrong with publishers being stronghanded into taking the time to push their developers to make great pieces of work. It's about brand image, not just sales. Movie studios and companies need to do some research before handing out their properties as well. Acclaim may do well in the markets (or whatever), but any gamer who knows the industry would tell you how shitty Acclaim is... they have a reputation for shit quality games.

It's a good idea.

---

No, consumers are the best quality control. If something doesn't sell, then ammends by the developers in the shape of a better game next time at bat is how it should work. And if that doesn't happen, then they don't get work in the future. It's a shame that plenty of good games DON'T sell, but some games are made for small audiences. That isn't the case with licensed games. If they sell well, how can a studio threaten to charge more for licensing? If they sell poorly, maybe the studio should have gotten behind the developers more from the beginning to ensure quality control instead of coming in after the fact and saying "We read IGN's review. You owe us 15% more." What kind of b.s. is that?

Also, this whole thing seems more like a strong arm tactic against reviewers. It's somewhat true that well reviewed games are more likely to sell well than poorly reviewed ones, especially for popular franchises or licenses. How would you like the average bracket for reviewers to shift because they don't want to lose their fringe benefits or have some kind of professional guilt for sticking it to a dev crew who had short lead time and little up front money? Instead of:

1,2,3,4,5,[6,7,8],9,10

the bracket for average reviews would be:

1,2,3,4,5,6,[7,8,9],10

or somesuch.

Or worse, where reviewers with axes to grind lower the bracket:

1,2,3,4,[5,6,7],8,9,10

"Yeah, so and so is being a dick about sending us preview and review material. Fuck 'em."

The weight of responsibility in quality control shouldn't be so much in the hands of people who write reviews. They should be completely out of the loop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scourge

Consumers are the best quality control.

---

Word. The Market knows. :nod:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shin Johnpv

sure this one sold well but was horrible i highly doubt a sequel will do anywhere near as well

now if they had actually made a decent game the first time it might have sold well for the next game too its about looking at long term investments and not just the here and now

---

I like you, john. Really, I do. I know we got off to a rocky start, but we've since made amends and are, dare I say, friendly with one another. Please, I know the comment I am about to make is going to upset you at least a little, but don't at all think I've lost any measure of respect for you, nor do I want to revert back to the "old us," sniping eachothers comments and trash talking eachother at every turn.

That said: WHAT THE HOLY FUCKING SENCE DOES THAT MAKE?! The Matrix sold MILLIONS. MILLIONS! It isn't about a sequel, and it isn't about a future investment. It's about a liscensed game that sold fucking millions! Reviews be damned, and personal opinion aside, WB can fuck themselves if they think they're owed more money because it scored a 6 instead of a 7.

"Brand damage?!" Fuck them! That isn't even a real legal term! THEY were the ones with shitty project oversight, they were the ones who sold the damned liscense to begin with, and they were the one who ultimately gave it the green light to hit store shelves! It's Atari's fault all of a sudden?! Fuck that noise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captain Vegetable

I like you, john. Really, I do. I know we got off to a rocky start, but we've since made amends and are, dare I say, friendly with one another. Please, I know the comment I am about to make is going to upset you at least a little, but don't at all think I've lost any measure of respect for you, nor do I want to revert back to the "old us," sniping eachothers comments and trash talking eachother at every turn.

That said: WHAT THE HOLY FUCKING SENCE DOES THAT MAKE?! The Matrix sold MILLIONS. MILLIONS! It isn't about a sequel, and it isn't about a future investment. It's about a liscensed game that sold fucking millions! Reviews be damned, and personal opinion aside, WB can fuck themselves if they think they're owed more money because it scored a 6 instead of a 7.

"Brand damage?!" Fuck them! That isn't even a real legal term! THEY were the ones with shitty project oversight, they were the ones who sold the damned liscense to begin with, and they were the one who ultimately gave it the green light to hit store shelves! It's Atari's fault all of a sudden?! Fuck that noise.

---

my point is how well do you think enter the matrix 2 is going to do since they said they plan on doing a sequel, i bet no wheres near as well as the first one even if its fucking amazing and gets 10s from every single person who plays it

how ever if the first one wasnt such a bug ridden piece of crap, then yeah i think a sequel might do better

simply because it left such a sour taste in so many gamers mouths, like State of Emergency 2 thats being made, that thing is going to hit bargain bins faster than you can say sequel even if its the best game ever

yeah the first one made bijillions but because it was bad it could cost them millions when the second one comes out

I think blame should go on both of them but the developer having more DIRECT control over how the game comes out should be held more responsible IMHO

and yes like some one said the reverse should be true of Game based movies

maybe they way theyre going about it isnt the best but i think something should be done to hold developers accountable for when they put out rushed crap IMHO

even if it sells well it hurts the franchises image

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shin Johnpv

yeah the first one made bijillions but because it was bad it could cost them millions when the second one comes out

---

Actually, it didn't "cost" them anything. A potential dollar isn't a dollar at all. The millions I'm talking about are quantifable. They actually exist on Atari's ledger. The millions you're talking about are fictitious. They only exist in predictions and forecasts. Now, I'm certainly not discrediting a business prediction or forecast, but for the love of everything green on this planet, saying that poor development of a game that sold millions upon millions cut out on possible future profits is rediculous. Re-freaking-diculous.

And thanks for being such a good sport. :)

i dont think its rediculous though

like i said yeah it sold millions but it was also ass, it being ass does effect future game sales

like i said i think something of some kind should be put into effect maybe this isnt the correct system, i personally dont know what is

but IMHO i dont see anything wrong with a company being paid less for making a shittier product

maybe the way were looking at it is wrong

i mean we keep refering to the matrix but what ever thats just one game

my point being that when a developer delivers less than what is expected they should be paid less for it

your not going to pay some one more for an inferior product just because alot of other people did it

least thats how i see it

If TNL still lacks a Secretary of Commerce, I hereby nominate Veggies.

:eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Meach

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scourge

Consumers are the best quality control.

---

Word. The Market knows. :nod:

---

The market is made up of half-wits whose only redeeming feature is they can't be fooled twice. I'm all for the inherent democracy of the marketplace, but it's simply bad business to dump everything on the consumer. If I make cookies for a living, I'm going to be damn sure to throw out the burnt ones, the crooked ones, and the ones with clumps of cunt hair in them before they ever reach my customers' lips.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captain Vegetable

That said: WHAT THE HOLY FUCKING SENCE DOES THAT MAKE?! The Matrix sold MILLIONS. MILLIONS! It isn't about a sequel, and it isn't about a future investment. It's about a liscensed game that sold fucking millions! Reviews be damned, and personal opinion aside, WB can fuck themselves if they think they're owed more money because it scored a 6 instead of a 7.

---

I don't think anyone is seriously talking about retroactively penalizing Atari/Shiny. The WB has every right to negotiate whatever future terms they want with their properties, even if they're as bizarrely arbitrary as demanding royalties based on magazine reviews. Sales ain't everything. Hootie & The Blowfish sold millions, but today, they can't sell dick. The music industry is in a massive slump because of their tendency to rely on one-hit-wonders that move millions of units, but have no staying power.

Quote:

---

"Brand damage?!" Fuck them! That isn't even a real legal term! THEY were the ones with shitty project oversight, they were the ones who sold the damned liscense to begin with, and they were the one who ultimately gave it the green light to hit store shelves! It's Atari's fault all of a sudden?! Fuck that noise.

---

Plenty of blame to go around, but ultimately, it's the WB's ball, and they can take it home if they want to. Would you prefer they did nothing to improve the quality of games? Are you happy with games like Enter the Matrix?

The market isn't quality control. Good games don't sell well either. It has more to do with brand images being tarnished than anything else.

Just ask the Olsens.

I did. I also asked Bob Sagat but before he could finish I got really annoyed at the pitch of his voice and punched him in the neck.

The world thanks you. Could you cut Dave Coulier out of the world as well?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by salmonax

...ultimately, it's the WB's ball, and they can take it home if they want to.

---

I agree. I agree 100%. However, this isn't a case of them taking their ball and going home. It's a case of Atari hitting a grounder to the second baseman and getting thrown out at first, and WB saying that Atari just gave their ball a bad rep, and that they're owed reperations for their ball's soiled image.

Garbage.

Quote:

---

Would you prefer they did nothing to improve the quality of games?

---

Quite frankly, yes. It isn't any of their damned business because it isn't theor freaking industry, and if they really do want to take their ball and go home, instead of all of this ridiculous impossition, I will not stop them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeremy

The world thanks you. Could you cut Dave Coulier out of the world as well?

---

Irrelevant tangent: Alanis Morissette's "You Oughta Know" was written about Dave Coulier, who was fucking her when she was a teenager, while they were both working on a Canadian kid's show.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captain Vegetable

I agree. I agree 100%. However, this isn't a case of them taking their ball and going home. It's a case of Atari hitting a grounder to the second baseman and getting thrown out at first, and WB saying that Atari just gave their ball a bad rep, and that they're owed reperations for their ball's soiled image.

Garbage.

---

No, it isn't. Nobody is asking for reparations. The WB is talking solely about future contracts. If you, as a publisher, have no confidence in your ability to deliver a quality game, then don't enter into a contract with the WB. Nobody is being forced into anything, so I don't see what you're taking umbrage at.

Quote:

---

Quite frankly, yes. It isn't any of their damned business because it isn't theor freaking industry, and if they really do want to take their ball and go home, instead of all of this ridiculous impossition, I will not stop them.

---

I'm no plumber, but I still retain the right to complain if the guy I hired to install a toilet sticks a bidet in there instead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by salmonax

No, it isn't. Nobody is asking for reparations. The WB is talking solely about future contracts. If you, as a publisher, have no confidence in your ability to deliver a quality game, then don't enter into a contract with the WB. Nobody is being forced into anything, so I don't see what you're taking umbrage at.

---

You've missed something, namely that part about the higher liscensing fees being implemented only after the review has hit the pages of "Game Magazine X."

Maybe now you can see my point? This new move, for all intents and purposes, is retroactive to whatever contract it applies to. It's "you and I are going to agree on a set price for the liscense, however we, the issuing party, retain the right to arbitrarily increase this fee without notice based on nothing but the opinions of single individulas who may not like the game at any point in the near or far future." All fees involved, therefore, are most definitely reparations, as they are predicated upon events in the future based on actions of the past.

Also, WB says it'll charge a fee if it doesn't "score at least a 70%?" OK, what if you score that 70% in EGM, but Game Informer decides to score you at a 50%? Do you still pay? What if EGM and GI both score you under 70%? Does that mean you pay twice?

This whole thing is rediculous. Does WB have the right to clause up their liscensing agreements like there's no tomorrow? Sure, I wasn't at all combating that. What I was combating was that fact that the clause seems to be a mighty big loop hole for the studio to acquire unnecessary penalties based on nothing more than arbitration.

Arbitration doesn't hold up in business deals, nor does it hold up in a court of law.

And considering context, the plumber metaphor was hog-wash. :p

Basically I think it is a good idea because it stops developers trying to sell a game on brand name alone instead of even trying to make the game good.

If devs didn't even try, we would never have got great licensed titles on the NES & SNES when games had to be good to sell well. Do you want licensed game to be good or not? Because devs currently have no reason to make them good.

To be honest, I couldn't give a crap about any games that suck my nuts, license or no.

And it's a bad idea, slugger.

Slugger. Heh.

No other entertainment industry does this.

What really gets me is that WB should have NO COMPLAINTS about Enter the Matrix. Who cares what the reviews are? They made boatloads. The brand image suffered? That's their problem for giving the game to a dev that didn't make the grade. They're just shifting the blame. The punishment for making a game that damages the brand should be A) poor sales and B) no second contract.

On a side note, I wonder if they're inserting these same specious clauses into the Wachowski Bros. contracts for the next Matrix movies b/c some serious brand dmg was done w/Reloaded/Revolutions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captain Vegetable

To be honest, I couldn't give a crap about any games that suck my nuts, license or no.

---

Then why are you even arguing about this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by salmonax

The market is made up of half-wits whose only redeeming feature is they can't be fooled twice. I'm all for the inherent democracy of the marketplace, but it's simply bad business to dump everything on the consumer. If I make cookies for a living, I'm going to be damn sure to throw out the burnt ones, the crooked ones, and the ones with clumps of cunt hair in them before they ever reach my customers' lips.

---

And if you don't you're out of business b/c Herr Konsumer ist Der_Kaiser.

WB shoulda done some quality control IF Enter was a cunt hair cookie. And for a cunt hair cookie it must have come from outer space or something b/c DAMN but it sold like hotcakes...or a cunt hair cookie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Damian79

Then why are you even arguing about this?

---

Just in case you haven't noticed, which you apparently have not, this thread isn't about "bad games." This thread is about the possible inclusion of clauses in contracts for lisenced properties that increase the fees based solely on arbitration. I am arguing about it because it's the single stupidest thing I've ever heard of, and if you do happen to be in favor of it then I've nothing left to think but that you're an inbred mouth-breather.


That inbred mouth-breather bit was a joke, but if you are, in fact, aligning yourself with the WB side of the argument, you clearly have no (or little) understanding of the situation at hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captain Vegetable

Just in case you haven't noticed, which you apparently have not, this thread isn't about "bad games." This thread is about the possible inclusion of clauses in contracts for lisenced properties that increase the fees based solely on arbitration. I am arguing about it because it's the single stupidest thing I've ever heard of, and if you do happen to be in favor of it then I've nothing left to think but that you're an inbred mouth-breather.


That inbred mouth-breather bit was a joke, but if you are, in fact, aligning yourself with the WB side of the argument, you clearly have no (or little) understanding of the situation at hand.

---

Ah, I see where you are coming from. But you are reading it wrong. It isn't that they will increase fees for bad games, but rather decrease fees for games they are satisfied with.

So instead of penalizing a company for bad games, they are rewarding good games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeremy

The world thanks you. Could you cut Dave Coulier out of the world as well?

---

No clue who that is but consider it done.

!!

That's Uncle Joey, you idiot.

He also had a show on Nickelodeon called Out Of Control. Then he co-hosted America's Funniest Animals.

he starred in such classic tv series as "Cut it Out" and "Full House" with the olsen twins

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Meach

Slugger. Heh.

The punishment for making a game that damages the brand should be A) poor sales and B) no second contract.

---

Exactly. And if it sells well even though it's a bad game, maybe the studio should still not hire that developer the second time around if they really give a shit about quality.

again personally i dont see anything wrong for paying a developer less if they put out a shit product in the end

like i said earlier maybe this review scheme or what ever isnt the way to go about i dont know

maybe Id have more faith in these developers if the ones commenting werent pissing themself from fear because of this, to me that bassicaly is them admiting they make crap and theyre afraid of not getting away with it any more

its like being in a fight, if you go into it shaking in your shoes shitting yourself, youve allready lost, if you go into it with confidence and thinking you have a good chance of winning itll help your odds alot more

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shin Johnpv

again personally i dont see anything wrong for paying a developer less if they put out a shit product in the end

---

A 'shit product' is a subjective term. Who decides what's 'shit'? Why does it matter? It matters b/c it costs the property owner money. And if the dev makes a product that sells well...BFD.

Now, as a gamer I want good, innovative games. But make no mistake that this industry, our hobby, is ruled by the Alighty Ollar.*

see by doing this by charging them more when a game is less then meeting expectations your forcing developers albeit through an artificial means to make good innovative titles

Maybe the movie industry should hold themselves responsible as well. Look at Atari's E.T. as a fine example. Atari paid Speilberg and company a boat load of money, for the license. Did they even care that the game was a pile of dung? No, they did not. They made a ton of money off the deal. Atari, on the other hand, lost their ass. Did this hurt sales of E.T. to video at all? Probably not, as one product, really has nothing to do with the other, except having the name plastered on the title.


If a movie company feels fit, to offer a game license for their product, they should just be happy with the fact, that someone paid for the product name.


Warner Brothers, is just looking for an excuse, for the Matrix:Revolutions, not doing as well in the box office, as they thought it would. Their product sucked, just as much as the game did. The game could have been the best game ever, but I highly doubt it would have made the movie a better hit at the box office.


If movie companies, like WB, want to hold game developers responsible for the product they make, then maybe they should take the time to play the game themselves, before letting the game company release it to retail. It's called quality control, the same thing they should be doing with thier movies.


The radio industry suffered, from a little tactic called payola. Would'nt this same kind of effect happen in the game magazine industry, if such a thing were to be applied to licensed games?

I don't know if you noticed, but a swarm of unnecessary commas descended upon your reply.

But yes, I agree, there's no reciprocity to what WB is trying to do. You make a bad game and we'll charge you, but if we make a bad movie oh well. What if this scare tactic does make for a higher quality game, but then the movie it's based on turns out to be shit and serves only to drive people away from the game? If WB doesn't hold themselves to the same rules, then the dev is out a lot of money, and they're a lot less equipped to deal with that than WB would be.

WB has only themselves to blame for the bad perception of their games. Case in point, all of the Cartoon Network games by BAM! have been crap. If they really cared about their image, they'd have dropped them after the first couple of turds, but NO, they've probably made about 20 shitty games based on WB cartoons, and WB keeps letting them. I'm sure there are plenty of devs who would have jumped at the chance to do a great Batman Beyond or Powerpuff Girls game when they were in their prime.

Quote:

---

This whole thing is rediculous. Does WB have the right to clause up their liscensing agreements like there's no tomorrow? Sure, I wasn't at all combating that. What I was combating was that fact that the clause seems to be a mighty big loop hole for the studio to acquire unnecessary penalties based on nothing more than arbitration.

---

They will look at the fucking GameRankings average. March your ass over to GameRankings and you'll see there are more than just GI and EGM to weigh the scores on.

Quite frankly, the defense you guys so often give to the game industry at the expense of others is hilarious. When game pirates get caught, FUCKING GOOD! When the RIAA or MPAA cracks down on movie/music pirates, it's the evil corporations cracking skulls. And now this. If this was some game company telling movie studios their RottenTomatoes score had to be above 70%, you'd all be sucking the game company's dick for their great move.

Look, WB just wants to protect their product. The product they spent a shitload of money developing and marketing. They are entitled to do with it what they see fit. If the movie turns out to be crummy, whatever - the GAME DEVELOPERS signed a contract to make a game BASED ON THE MOVIE. So it's completely reasonable that WB sets the terms of it. There's absolutely nothing wrong with this move and to be honest Im surprised it didn't come 10 years ago, considering how long developers have been raping movies. I mean, seriously, so many of you have bitched for so long about the quality of movie-to-games, so why are you pissed when a movie studio is trying to do something about it?

Oh, and the NFL is a bastard with their license too. They have a right to be.

Quote:

---

You make a bad game and we'll charge you, but if we make a bad movie oh well.

---

Don't be stupid. Of course WB is not gonna put that in their contract. That is something the game companies have to work on in negotiation. BUT, I would say, if they make a bad movie, don't license the damn thing for a videogame.

Shit! Look at what this guy from WB said:

Quote:

---

But Hall would only comment that "sales don't equal quality."

---

Isn't that the same thing you asshats spout endlessly? He's on your side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Damian79

Part of the problem comes from the reviewers aswell.

Games like Dungeon Seige and DK 64 scored extremely well despite being complete turds and a lot of games get preferential treatment, a lot of magazines like Hyper(in Australia) for example gets a few money hats from developers for their games to get scored slightly better.

Then there is the first impressions which casuals base their purchase on that are often decieving in videogames.

---

I loved DK64. Best scavenger hunt game on N64 after Mario.

Do you also happen to like hammering nails into your balls aswell?

For once I agree with DiffusionX

Ill keep saying it but i honestly DO NOT see what the problem is with trying to force develoeprs to NOT MAKE CRAP based on liscences to for fucking once put out a decent liscenced game

I dont know whats so bad about that

I love the Samurai Jack series and Id kill for them to finally make a GOOD Samurai Jack game and maybe this will make it happen

Damian sums up the DK 64 experience pretty nicely. Great final boss battle, hellish time actually GETTING to the boss battle. Also, I'd like to apologize for my Bob Saget knock earlier, as my earlier statement would seemingly lump him in with DK 64-quality comedy, and that's simply wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffx

BUT, I would say, if they make a bad movie, don't license the damn thing for a videogame.

---

Ah, but if a game is to lauch near release of the movie, it needs to start development when nobody will have any idea what sort of quality the finished movie will be like. Not to mention that the movie studio perpetuates making the games being unpolished by pressuring the game's deadlines. A lot of games not tied to liscences, that have minimal restrictions on their timetable, end up being bad, so it's really no big surprise that a game that's got a lot tighter schedule to work in ends up being substandard. There's two ways to remedy that: The studio cooperates with the game developers from day one of pre-production, with maximum disclosure of resources relating to the movie, to give the game as much development time as possible, or the studios resign themselves to the fact that a fully-realized game need a respectable amount of time to be worked on, which in many cases will mean that it ships at least a few months after the movie comes to theatres. Those are the only real options if quality is what they're really after. But that won't happen, because what they're really after is maximum profits for the short-term, and that means pushing a game out the door when it has the strongest product awareness.

They're saying "we want a delicious chocolate cake in half the time most delicious chocolate cakes require to make", and then throwing a hissy-fit when corners are cut.

well, i don't even remember the final boss fight. i do remember hours upon hours of exploring huge levels, collecting colored and golden bananas and blueprints and stuff and having lots of fun watching the percentage counters go up. but if you don't like this formula then it's not surprising you wouldn't like dk64.

Diffx: Go back to your math, cocktouch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Look, WB just wants to protect their product. The product they spent a shitload of money developing and marketing. They are entitled to do with it what they see fit.

---

They auction off the license to make money. Which they did. Which is why I don't sympathize w/WB at all. The 'purpose' of Enter the Matrix (if games have a purpose) was to make WB money. Which it did. Measured in gross tonnage.

Look. Say I agree to build a house for a real estate developer. I build it and then he sells it. Then he comes to me and whines about how it's not 'aesthetically pleasing' enough for a bunch of architecture profs that he had come down and 'review' my house. Eff that. The house can sell. That's all that matters. If I build a friggin' P.I.M.P. house, the developer can make more money. If I build a dive, well, geez, he'll still be able to sell it (at dive prices) and I won't be doing business with him anymore (and he shouldn't have hired a crappy house builder). That strikes me as quite fair.

Now, the only difference btw the above scenario and what WB is proposing is that they will have the Review Clause in the contract from the beginning (which is their right). I'd wager a substantial sum that the Suits at every developer from Seattle to Dallas are telling their guys, "Don't sign this crap." I know I'd never take a job where my pay is influenced not by whether the public will pay for it but by whether a critic likes it 'enough'.

I believe teh_Market is inherently fair. What you put in is what you get out. Introducing aesthetics is a bad idea when we're talking about ppl getting paid/financial contracts. If you make a better licensed game, you'll see better financial rewards via the natural flow of the market; nobody at corporate gives an Eff about what GI/EGM think b/c WB's only concern is how much money Enter will make (and it will make the same whether it scored 68% or 72% at GameRankings).

I think you guys are missing the point of the idea. Instead of increasing the royaly price for bad games, they are reducing the price for royaly for good games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bacon McShig

I don't know if you noticed, but a swarm of unnecessary commas descended upon your reply.

.

---

I had a swarm of unneccesary beers as well. :xx:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Damian79

I think you guys are missing the point of the idea. Instead of increasing the royaly price for bad games, they are reducing the price for royaly for good games.

---

They're doing both. If the game is bad, they in turn will raise the licensing fee, if it's good, they'll lower it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bacon McShig

Ah, but if a game is to lauch near release of the movie, it needs to start development when nobody will have any idea what sort of quality the finished movie will be like. Not to mention that the movie studio perpetuates making the games being unpolished by pressuring the game's deadlines. A lot of games not tied to liscences, that have minimal restrictions on their timetable, end up being bad, so it's really no big surprise that a game that's got a lot tighter schedule to work in ends up being substandard. There's two ways to remedy that: The studio cooperates with the game developers from day one of pre-production, with maximum disclosure of resources relating to the movie, to give the game as much development time as possible, or the studios resign themselves to the fact that a fully-realized game need a respectable amount of time to be worked on, which in many cases will mean that it ships at least a few months after the movie comes to theatres. Those are the only real options if quality is what they're really after. But that won't happen, because what they're really after is maximum profits for the short-term, and that means pushing a game out the door when it has the strongest product awareness.

They're saying "we want a delicious chocolate cake in half the time most delicious chocolate cakes require to make", and then throwing a hissy-fit when corners are cut.

---

EGM had an interesting article on this about 2 years ago. One annonymous developer talked about how the publisher set a deadline for the game to be done by. The game developer had a game about 75% complete and was forced to close the deal, before they were finished with the game. Who got the blaim for the bad product? The developer, but they had no say in the matter, nor the budget for making the game in the first place.

Hmm... Yeah, that isn't right. But 70% isn't that hard to get considering the likes of gamepro and fan sites. Also, testing the games before release isn't going to work. I mean, what would happen if they think it is a bad game? Do they just scrap the game completely?

But something has to be done though, there is a clear difference in quality between 8-bit licensed titles and todays licensed titles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melf

I found the Genesis Aladdin game to be better (surprise!). These were also good:

- Terminator (Sega CD)
- EA's LOTR games
- Batman Returns (SNES)
- Batman (NES)
- Rambo 3 (Genesis)

---

-Terminator 2: Judgment Day ~ The Arcade Game (Acclaim does right on this one)
-RoboCop (Data East, arcade)
-Rambo 3 (Taito, arcade)
-Alien 3 (Acclaim, Genesis)
-The Punisher (Capcom, arcade version ONLY- The Genesis version is profane)
-Alien Vs. Predator (Capcom)

Dropping royalty prices for good licensed games is not a bad idea. Jacking up license fees in the event of a game being horrid could cause the publishers to pressure reviewers to give at least a 70, so I'd question that.

When EGM griped about the "upgrade syndrome" on SNES SSFII, Capcom got pissed at them and pulled advertisements- which had to have cost the mag beaucoup bucks.

The publisher will already answer to the customer if the game is just junk. One who is disappointed with the game goes forth and posts his thoughts on a message board, warning others to not touch it with a twenty-foot pole- meaning some prospective sales for the title are nixed.

Rather than raising royalty rates, a licensor should subscribe to "Screw me once, shame on you- screw me twice, shame on me"- don't allow devs who butchered a previous license a chance to strike again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gameoverDude

Rather than raising royalty rates, a licensor should subscribe to "Screw me once, shame on you- screw me twice, shame on me"- don't allow devs who butchered a previous license a chance to strike again.

---

That is pretty much all devs lately. :p