[an error occurred while processing this directive] WB will penalize games for bad reviews - http://www.mmcafe.com/ Forums


Original message ([an error occurred while processing this directive] Views )[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Gojira
1437th Post



user profileedit/delete message

Red Carpet Executive Member




"WB will penalize games for bad reviews" , posted Wed 26 May 15:28:post reply


God, first the Olsen twins lashing out at the world over their lack of talent and now this.

Gamespot article

EDIT: lizzink





[this message was edited by Gojira on Wed 26 May 15:30]

Replies:

TeirusuCSS
60th Post



user profileedit/delete message

Occasional Customer

"Re(1):WB will penalize games for bad reviews" , posted Wed 26 May 15:47post reply


OK, now no one will want to develop for WB now. That's a good thing, actually.

Let the fall of liscenced games commence!





Cats? I much prefer foxes.

Undead Fred
1587th Post



user profileedit/delete message

Red Carpet V.I.P- Platinum Member





"Re(1):WB will penalize games for bad reviews" , posted Wed 26 May 15:53post reply


quote:
God, first the Olsen twins lashing out at the world over their lack of talent and now this.

Gamespot article

EDIT: lizzink

Hmm... Sounds good to me! I was thinking they'd more or less punish reviewers into giving their games higher ratings they didn't deserve, but it's the other way around. "Don't make a good game, and it will cost you." The Atari guy's reaction is understandable, though- "What?? The game sold a lot of copies and made a lot of money, but you're going to punish us??" Still, Enter the Matrix had some VERY sucky parts in it, so someone should get a slap on the wrist or SOMETHING for not trying harder... At least WB is looking out for the people that are buying games based on their stuff. Sounds good.






BLAGGO

Juan
3988th Post



user profileedit/delete message

Platinum Carpet V.I.P- Board Master





"Re(1):WB will penalize games for bad reviews" , posted Wed 26 May 15:54:post reply


Thats hilarious. Atari is just pissed because they probably know that Matrix Online will probably be a big pile of poo, and they will have to pay extra for the Matrix license. Knee jerk reaction before the punishment.

I dont see whats so bad about this.

Edit: OHNOES YOU MEAN I CANT MAKE CRAP ANYMORE!?!?!?!?!?!

quote:
God, first the Olsen twins lashing out at the world over their lack of talent and now this.

Gamespot article

EDIT: lizzink








STFU

[this message was edited by Juan on Wed 26 May 15:56]

Undead Fred
1588th Post



user profileedit/delete message

Red Carpet V.I.P- Platinum Member





"Re(2):WB will penalize games for bad reviews" , posted Wed 26 May 16:07post reply


quote:
Thats hilarious. Atari is just pissed because they probably know that Matrix Online will probably be a big pile of poo, and they will have to pay extra for the Matrix license. Knee jerk reaction before the punishment.

I dont see whats so bad about this.

Edit: OHNOES YOU MEAN I CANT MAKE CRAP ANYMORE!?!?!?!?!?!

-_-; <BEEEEEE-OOOOOoooo...

(that's the sound of the sweat drop rolling down Atari's forehead)






BLAGGO

Amakusa
477th Post



user profileedit/delete message

Gold Customer


"Re(1):WB will penalize games for bad reviews" , posted Wed 26 May 18:44post reply


Distaste for shitty games aside, the whole thing stinks.

1. You can't control reviewers.

2. Some reviewers couldn't review their way out of a paper bag.

3. Some reviewers are predisposed against liscened games.

Who's to say that WB won't just 'buy-off' reviewers for a multi-million dollar game just to collect MORE royalties?





I found Kagami's sword in a junk yard.
I will rule the world and find that truly good cup of coffee.
"Dink-a-dink-a-dink-a-do."

Radish
2560th Post



user profileedit/delete message

Platinum Carpet V.I.P- Board Master





"Re(2):WB will penalize games for bad reviews" , posted Wed 26 May 19:44post reply


First they came for the shitty licensed games and I said nothing...






Dr Baghead
3035th Post



user profileedit/delete message

Platinum Carpet V.I.P- Board Master





"Re(3):WB will penalize games for bad reviews" , posted Wed 26 May 20:32post reply


Hey if the WB is doing this then maybe the games based on "the Batman" and "Batman Begins" will actually be fun unliked the other Batman games.


Or they'll be aweful and it'll earn good reviews by buying lots and lots and lots of IGN ad space...





VariantX
241th Post



user profileedit/delete message

Frequent Customer

"Re(4):WB will penalize games for bad reviews" , posted Wed 26 May 21:17post reply


quote:
Hey if the WB is doing this then maybe the games based on "the Batman" and "Batman Begins" will actually be fun unliked the other Batman games.


Or they'll be aweful and it'll earn good reviews by buying lots and lots and lots of IGN ad space...



That dosent decide whether the game will be good or not or whether it will sell or not. WB needs to get a grip... good reviews dont equal big money. There are great games out there that sold like crap. This goes to show that these people fail to even understand the game market.





EternalNewbie
104th Post



user profileedit/delete message

Regular Customer

"Re(5):WB will penalize games for bad reviews" , posted Wed 26 May 21:31post reply


A step in the right direction, but needs lots of work before this system could work. As already stated in this thread, there are a good amount of flaws in it. Namely, how reviewers themselves aren't always a good source of... well... good reviews. Plus, good reviews doesn't always mean good sales. However, I think the goal trying to be achieved by this is something we can understand and support. I mean, really, the goal is basically saying no more craptastic games. I don't know about everyone else, but I prefer (and hopefully everyone else) my games to be fun and well-made. I wonder what would be a good system to stop crappy license games from selling and forcing/encouraging better games. Anyone have alternative ideas?






EternalNewbie:
The Hachishinkan -- The Weil Numbers.

DarkZero
799th Post



user profileedit/delete message

Red Carpet Regular Member+



"Re(5):WB will penalize games for bad reviews" , posted Wed 26 May 21:38post reply


quote:

That dosent decide whether the game will be good or not or whether it will sell or not. WB needs to get a grip... good reviews dont equal big money. There are great games out there that sold like crap. This goes to show that these people fail to even understand the game market.



Actually, they DO understand the game market. They understand that when millions of people shell out $50 for a horrendously bad game that's taken from one of their licenses, that causes brand damage. The fact that Enter The Matrix sucked so badly means that the very large number of people who bought the game are now never going to buy another Matrix game again and in many cases are just turned off to the entire franchise as a whole now.

Just look at the way The Matrix Online is being received. Despite the fact that a lot of the people working on it had nothing to do with Enter The Matrix, everyone still says that it will suck, even though very little about it has been revealed -- because the last Matrix game sucked. That's the sort of brand damage that they're talking about. They've made money on one Matrix game, but now they're never going to make money on another Matrix game again. Given the choice, I'm sure they would rather have sold five Matrix games that received modest sales instead of just one game that performed well, but helped end the franchise.

And people will still make games for Warner Bros., because there's still an enormous pot of gold there for American developers. And even with increased royalty rates, I think that Enter The Matrix still would've made a huge pile of money for Atari.





Ammadeau
990th Post



user profileedit/delete message

Red Carpet Regular Member++



"Re(5):WB will penalize games for bad reviews" , posted Wed 26 May 21:40post reply


quote:
That dosent decide whether the game will be good or not or whether it will sell or not. WB needs to get a grip... good reviews dont equal big money. There are great games out there that sold like crap. This goes to show that these people fail to even understand the game market.


Sales they don't directly benefit from since they would have already gotten their fee when the game goes into production.

What they're worried about is the image problems to their properties these bad games cause. So terrible games hurt the overall image of the Matrix or whatever, which is true to a small extent, but I think the sequels did a much better job of damaging that property.






Updated when I can... which isn't very often. ^_^;;

cafeh2
41th Post



user profileedit/delete message

Rare Customer

"Re(6):WB will penalize games for bad reviews" , posted Wed 26 May 22:33post reply


I will penalize WB for allowing the release of Enter the Matrix, which damaged the image of video games to many casual consumers.





Gojira
1437th Post



user profileedit/delete message

Red Carpet Executive Member




"Re(6):WB will penalize games for bad reviews" , posted Thu 27 May 00:43post reply


quote:

Actually, they DO understand the game market. They understand that when millions of people shell out $50 for a horrendously bad game that's taken from one of their licenses, that causes brand damage. The fact that Enter The Matrix sucked so badly means that the very large number of people who bought the game are now never going to buy another Matrix game again and in many cases are just turned off to the entire franchise as a whole now.



Oh yeah. So if a number of people didn't think Matrix Revolutions was the movie to shine their dicks upon, that's of course the GAME'S fault.





DarkZero
800th Post



user profileedit/delete message

Red Carpet Regular Member+



"Re(7):WB will penalize games for bad reviews" , posted Thu 27 May 01:00post reply


quote:

Actually, they DO understand the game market. They understand that when millions of people shell out $50 for a horrendously bad game that's taken from one of their licenses, that causes brand damage. The fact that Enter The Matrix sucked so badly means that the very large number of people who bought the game are now never going to buy another Matrix game again and in many cases are just turned off to the entire franchise as a whole now.


Oh yeah. So if a number of people didn't think Matrix Revolutions was the movie to shine their dicks upon, that's of course the GAME'S fault.



Well, obviously Reloaded did a Hell of a lot more damage (IIRC, the box office numbers for Revolutions showed that the damage was already done), the game certainly didn't help any. It could've sucked at least a LITTLE less than the sequels themselves. And while I have heard a lot of people say that they have no interest in The Matrix Online just based on the sequels themselves, most of the negative things I've heard about it are more akin to "Will I get stuck in a wall again?" or "I wonder how many times it will crash THIS time".

Oh, and I found this sort of interesting. This is an e-mail that Tycho from Penny Arcade received from a game developer whose name he wouldn't mention:
WB's plan is a great one. As a person that has made one or two crappy licensed games myself (even for Warner Bros.) I welcome the idea someone saying, “hey quit making shitty fucking games you asshole”. It’s good for the industry and I don’t like shitty games any more than the next guy.

Now, with that said am I going to get more time to do them? Am I going to get more money? Are the Movie studios going to quit catering to the lowest bidder and go with the quality studios? The biggest and last question, are the movies studios still going to wait until the last three months of production and insist on changing the entire fucking game because one of their fat executives played it for five fucking minutes and didn’t think he liked it? When answer to those questions equal no, then and only then with shitty movie licenses quit being produced.


Given that most of the reviews I read for Enter The Matrix repeatedly used phrases like "the game feels sort of rushed", "it's as if they had no time for bug testing", or "just six more months...", I really wonder if anyone else will work with Warner Bros. again. It's one thing to punish a bad developer, but it's another thing to take money from a good developer that you're just screwing with. Then again, Shiny wasn't exactly on a roll before Enter The Matrix...





EddyT
293th Post


user profileedit/delete message

Copper Customer


"Re(5):WB will penalize games for bad reviews" , posted Thu 27 May 01:03:post reply


quote:
That dosent decide whether the game will be good or not or whether it will sell or not. WB needs to get a grip... good reviews dont equal big money. There are great games out there that sold like crap. This goes to show that these people fail to even understand the game market.



The WB licenses are generally well-known, though... so I don't think it's likely that you'll see a licensed game slip past the spotlight, unless the license isn't popular in the first place. Most kids will see Batman or Justice League on a game, and they'll be interested in buying it for that sole relation. Enter The Matrix wasn't a very good game, but people bought it because they saw the name and they were sold for the moment. It definitely could have sold more copies, had the game been more playable and fluid. Instead, a lot of people ended up selling it fast or tried to return it.

I think companies like WB should care about the quality of the games. It would give a bad impression to their audience if they just didn't care. That, and just like any other person needing something done from someone else... why should I pay you good money if you are going to be lazy and give me crappy service? I can easily go elsewhere and pay them the same amount to do a much better job for me. It's not like WB is short-changing them in the first place... I'm sure they give top-dollar to the game companies. Good for WB for sticking up for themselves.

I remember reading somewhere that the South Park creators cut ties with Acclaim for that very reason. They were really disgusted with the poor efforts that were made to utilize their licensed characters.





[this message was edited by EddyT on Thu 27 May 01:09]

Ammadeau
992th Post



user profileedit/delete message

Red Carpet Regular Member++



"Re(6):WB will penalize games for bad reviews" , posted Thu 27 May 03:33post reply


Shiny spend four years on Enter the Matrix, using an existing game engine. Six more years wouldn't have helped.

But really the fault isn't with the developer or the studio, but the publisher who shoves these unrealistic deadlines on devs for most games, not just ones with a movie tie in.






Updated when I can... which isn't very often. ^_^;;

Radish
2562th Post



user profileedit/delete message

Platinum Carpet V.I.P- Board Master





"Re(7):WB will penalize games for bad reviews" , posted Thu 27 May 05:39post reply


quote:

Oh yeah. So if a number of people didn't think Matrix Revolutions was the movie to shine their dicks upon, that's of course the GAME'S fault.



This was the exact logic the makers of the Tombraider movie used.

Link Here






Grahf
85th Post



user profileedit/delete message

Occasional Customer

"Re(8):WB will penalize games for bad reviews" , posted Thu 27 May 06:16post reply


quote:
This was the exact logic the makers of the Tombraider movie used.

Link Here

I think it's funny that the last Tomb Raider game was so bad that even Tomb Raider fans thought it sucked.

On another note, will movie producers ever be punished for making crappy movies based on video games?

Answer here: no.





shotokan anime
23th Post



user profileedit/delete message

New Customer

"Drink Sobe and shut up" , posted Thu 27 May 22:20post reply


quote:
Thats hilarious. Atari is just pissed because they probably know that Matrix Online will probably be a big pile of poo, and they will have to pay extra for the Matrix license. Knee jerk reaction before the punishment.

I dont see whats so bad about this.

Edit: OHNOES YOU MEAN I CANT MAKE CRAP ANYMORE!?!?!?!?!?!

God, first the Olsen twins lashing out at the world over their lack of talent and now this.

Gamespot article

EDIT: lizzink




From my whole six week stint at (un)funimation, I had to sit in three Atari meetings where they said that reviewers were "hateful" to the license and reviewed stuff slanted because of it. Maybe if they just took the time to see why they were hateful we could get a decent game out of the license. They also thought the idea of hawking Sobe and Nokia in Driver 3 whas the best thing that would happen to gamers (we actually had a 4 hour meeting on that little pile of poo) When asked if the comsumer would get a break in pricing for the joy of watching Tanner drive by two Sobe machines on the same corner 12 feet apart, they said that the money recieved goes into marketing the shit they peddle.

I stated that i have never seen a Sobe Vending Machine and that it doesn't make the game feel more real but like some forced advertisment....

My point is that you need to:



Spoiler (Highlight to view) -
Drink Sobe and use a Nokia 90000

End of Spoiler


First Chucky and now Atari, all my childhood memories replaced with false icons (Damn you Noland!)





Undead Fred
1595th Post



user profileedit/delete message

Red Carpet V.I.P- Platinum Member





"FR3,E V,1C0.D1N W1,TH UR CO.P,Y OF D;R1V3R 3" , posted Fri 28 May 12:20post reply


quote:

Oh, and I found this sort of interesting. This is an e-mail that Tycho from Penny Arcade received from a game developer whose name he wouldn't mention:
WB's plan is a great one. As a person that has made one or two crappy licensed games myself (even for Warner Bros.) I welcome the idea someone saying, “hey quit making shitty fucking games you asshole”. It’s good for the industry and I don’t like shitty games any more than the next guy.

Now, with that said am I going to get more time to do them? Am I going to get more money? Are the Movie studios going to quit catering to the lowest bidder and go with the quality studios? The biggest and last question, are the movies studios still going to wait until the last three months of production and insist on changing the entire fucking game because one of their fat executives played it for five fucking minutes and didn’t think he liked it? When answer to those questions equal no, then and only then with shitty movie licenses quit being produced.


Given that most of the reviews I read for Enter The Matrix repeatedly used phrases like "the game feels sort of rushed", "it's as if they had no time for bug testing", or "just six more months...", I really wonder if anyone else will work with Warner Bros. again. It's one thing to punish a bad developer, but it's another thing to take money from a good developer that you're just screwing with. Then again, Shiny wasn't exactly on a roll before Enter The Matrix...

Nah, them video game wizards can use their magic computers to get the game done in a week if they wanted to. They's just bein' LAZY!!! It's completely their fault.

That's a good point, though. WB punishing game companies for bad results is fine, but they do need to take into account whether or not they're partially to blame when they give them the task equivalent to moving the WB building a little bit to the left and don't give them any time to do it...
quote:
From my whole six week stint at (un)funimation, I had to sit in three Atari meetings where they said that reviewers were "hateful" to the license and reviewed stuff slanted because of it. Maybe if they just took the time to see why they were hateful we could get a decent game out of the license. They also thought the idea of hawking Sobe and Nokia in Driver 3 whas the best thing that would happen to gamers (we actually had a 4 hour meeting on that little pile of poo) When asked if the comsumer would get a break in pricing for the joy of watching Tanner drive by two Sobe machines on the same corner 12 feet apart, they said that the money recieved goes into marketing the shit they peddle.

I stated that i have never seen a Sobe Vending Machine and that it doesn't make the game feel more real but like some forced advertisment....

Good. I'm glad someone told them that they're over-marketing pieces of shit. Well, you weren't THAT blunt, but I'm glad you said something. I hate seeing ads in real life, and I sure as hell don't want to see ads in my video games. Maybe if there was more care put into the game and not which products can be forced upon us through the game, then they'd sell more copies. I mean, we're already paying $40-50 to own the game anyway, why the hell should they be allowed to stick out-of-place product endorsements in there? Doesn't Driver still take place in THE SEVENTIES?? As far as I know, there was no such thing as Sobe and Nokia back then... And if the executives had the game set in the present time just so they could place those products in it, then they need a good, old-fashioned "better run to your car" beat-down.

If a game has billboards and stuff in it, I want them to be fake ones. Like, every ad in Max Payne, for example. Then I can enjoy their fake ad (because they're usually kind of funny), and not get pissed because some fat, old executive made them try to sell me stuff I don't want while I'm trying to enjoy a game.






BLAGGO

DKW
257th Post



user profileedit/delete message

Copper Customer


"Re(1):WB will penalize games for bad reviews" , posted Fri 28 May 21:36post reply


I have three problems with this policy:

1. Bass-ackwardness. The foremost concern for any game company is what will SELL. Not reviews, or originality, or non-gaming public perception, or anything else. Expecting them to put the whims of a bunch of unreliable, hopelessly biased writers above marketability and saleability is ludicrous (doubly so because movie companies themselves have been putting out critically-panned potboilers for years.)

2. Potential for abuse. In fact, I'd be surprised if the game maker didn't at least attempt to bribe a number of reviewers, or the reviewers went directly to them and made demands.

3. Simple logistics. What number constitues a "positive" review? If it's borderline, does that count as a wash? Does a rookie reviewer or one who works for a small, relatively unknown magazine carry less weight? Just too unworkable in my book.

Instead of reviews, WB should use one criteria to judge the worthiness of the game...MONEY. If people are buying (and renting) it, it's good. If they're not, it's bad. That's how both industries operate in real life; why not just carry over this basic principle?





homepage - http://home.hawaii.rr.com/dkwff

Undead Fred
1600th Post



user profileedit/delete message

Red Carpet V.I.P- Platinum Member





"Re(2):WB will penalize games for bad reviews" , posted Mon 31 May 02:22:post reply


quote:
I have three problems with this policy:

1. Bass-ackwardness. The foremost concern for any game company is what will SELL. Not reviews, or originality, or non-gaming public perception, or anything else. Expecting them to put the whims of a bunch of unreliable, hopelessly biased writers above marketability and saleability is ludicrous (doubly so because movie companies themselves have been putting out critically-panned potboilers for years.)


And you have overlooked something. It is this- companies like to be able to sell more than one thing. If they can make one Matrix game that everyone liked, that means people will PROBABLY buy more Matrix games. Even though the movies sucked, people liked the Matrix idea enough to enjoy playing Matrix games. Why make a lot of money off of ONE game, when you can make the first game a good game which rakes in money for that one, AND its sequels? That makes a lot more sense to put pressure on the companies representing their properties to make a quality product so the customer will still be interested when they come out with another game based on the same thing.
quote:

2. Potential for abuse. In fact, I'd be surprised if the game maker didn't at least attempt to bribe a number of reviewers, or the reviewers went directly to them and made demands.


I thought that at first, but did you read any of the posts or the article? Their bribing reviewers won't work FOR them. They get to charge the game makers more money if they can't make a good game. So, unless you meant that they could bribe reviewers to make BAD reviews of their game, it wouldn't work in their favor. It STILL wouldn't work in anyone else's favor to rate a good game badly for the sake of getting more money out of the developers- first of all, the magazine would risk its reputation by rating a game everyone likes and doesn't have glaring flaws badly. Thus, the magazine's sales would go down, or the website would lose visitors, or whatever you like. So, the reviewer wouldn't get a good deal out of that. The company (WB for example) also wouldn't gain from that because their sales would more than likely be hurt by the bribed-down reviews. They'd get to charge more from the developer for royalty fees, but that's all they'd gain. They'd lose sales of the game in the meantime, and possibly risk sales of future games related to the first.
quote:

3. Simple logistics. What number constitues a "positive" review? If it's borderline, does that count as a wash? Does a rookie reviewer or one who works for a small, relatively unknown magazine carry less weight? Just too unworkable in my book.


The article said. What was it, like a 70% average review or something was considered the cut-off mark? Something like that? Anyway, they came out and said what the low mark was before they would start charging people, and I was pretty sure it was an overall average from the major reviewing sources (including websites, I assume).
quote:

Instead of reviews, WB should use one criteria to judge the worthiness of the game...MONEY. If people are buying (and renting) it, it's good. If they're not, it's bad. That's how both industries operate in real life; why not just carry over this basic principle?

For reasons stated earlier, they want people to stay for more than one game so they'll make more money. Aside from that, if they're also wanting to show SOME respect for their customers, then I think that's great. It's about time one of those companies saw their clients as more than a wallet that they can reach for. I'm sure it's a simple "establish a good reputation for our licenses and we'll sell more in the long run" strategy, but if they're also being considerate of their customers, then that's awesome too. Money does NOT equal quality. It never has. It can help raise the CHANCE for quality, but it will never, ever guarantee it. Movies and music have proven it, and so have games. Kangaroo Jack was bragging that it was the #1 movie in America when it was out, but does that make it a good movie? Hell no. From our end, we're spending our money on this stuff, so we want it to be good. From their end, they want to keep interest in the product high so they can keep profiting from it. If they let game companies make crappy games with their licenses, then people will lose interest quickly and they won't be able to profit on sequels and other related stuff. Companies like WB's reasons for doing this should be clear.



...now, on the other hand, that message earlier had a good point. The companies that have these licensed properties should allow for adequate development time before they pull the "we're going to charge you for your crappy game" rule. If the big, fat executive plays the work in progress for 5 seconds and decides he hates it already and makes them totally re-work everything, then the game company should be allowed a fair amount of time to "fix" everything before it's released.


EDIT:

Works cited
------------------------------------------
1. Wells, H.G. The Time Machine.
Dr. Phantom Press, WI. 1965.

2. Faigin, Gary. The Artist's Complete
Guide to Facial Expression
.
Porkfart University Press, KG. 1978.






BLAGGO

[this message was edited by Undead Fred on Mon 31 May 02:30]