Hollywood and game makers are becoming wary of each other.

[Drewbacca]

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.

[Jeremy]

Just ask the Olsens.

[Drewbacca]

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.

[Jeremy]

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

[Captain Vegetable]

...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.

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.

[salmonax]

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.

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.

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.

[Captain Vegetable]

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.

[Damian79]

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.

[Captain Vegetable]

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.

[The_Meach]

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.