Title: Games Based on Movies to become better?
cd2 - May 25, 2004 11:07 PM (GMT)
First off I was not sure where to put this since it envolves all gaming formats, so I just thru it here..
| QUOTE |
| Warner Brothers Loyalties will be higher if games receive bad review score. Cool, better licenses. Warner Bros. is tired of bad quality products, as movie merchandise, in which games are included need to be top notch quality so the licenses get a better reputation. "The game industry has had its time to exploit movie studios all day long and to get away with producing inferior products," says Hall. "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. 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. It seems that Atari wasn't very happy with what Warner Bros. said: We sold four million copies of Enter the Matrix. That's $250 million worldwide," declares Bruno Bonnell, Atari's chairman and CEO. "That's what a big major motion picture makes. And Warner Bros. would penalize us because we didn't achieve 70%? Are they joking? Are we proud of everything we do? In most cases, yes," he says. "Do we fail sometimes? Sometimes. Do we feel we have to pay because we fail and because the ratings reflect that? No, absolutely not." |
So will will we see better games from this or will we see a revoult where developers drop making games for Warner Bros, because the risk is to high?
jawbreaker982 - May 25, 2004 11:23 PM (GMT)
How do they determine if a game hits the magical 70% mark? God only knows there are as many opinions as there are assholes, and what is a 65% game to one person can be viewed as the ultimate game to another, worthy of 95% plus.
Or have they picked out one divine, all knowing source as their bible? I'm all for making the gameplay sell the game, not the licence, but there seems to be a few problems...or have I missed something completely?
:P
Or have they picked out one divine, all knowing source as their bible? I'm all for making the gameplay sell the game, not the licence, but there seems to be a few problems...or have I missed something completely?
:P
Manny M - May 25, 2004 11:50 PM (GMT)
I think they just pay a visit to GameRankings.com.
This could also open up a whole can of worms, with developers paying off reviewers to give their review a boost...
This could also open up a whole can of worms, with developers paying off reviewers to give their review a boost...
jawbreaker982 - May 25, 2004 11:58 PM (GMT)
I was also just thinking, they said that game developers will have to deliver on their promises, that is, "to produce a great game".
I wouldn't consider a score of 70% reflective of a great game. That is more my idea of a 'weekend renter' or a 'playitatmyrichfriendshouse' kind of game.
I wouldn't consider a score of 70% reflective of a great game. That is more my idea of a 'weekend renter' or a 'playitatmyrichfriendshouse' kind of game.
CLL - May 26, 2004 01:07 AM (GMT)
Sounds like a good idea. At the very least it might stop developers trying to get rich off shonky games that sell well to the unknowing masses. Hopefully this will increase the overall quality.
As for judging a game's score, I guess they would just have to read a whole lot of reviews from the major gaming publications and websites.
As for judging a game's score, I guess they would just have to read a whole lot of reviews from the major gaming publications and websites.
Film Guru - May 26, 2004 01:31 AM (GMT)
Good to finally hear movie studios taking their game adaptions seriously. This could be a very good sign for the future. If there's one thing that always got me annoyed it's how it shows the game makers didn't even try to do something decent with the licence.
Well done WB! Now keep your promise! :P
Well done WB! Now keep your promise! :P
Beast - May 26, 2004 03:25 AM (GMT)
I got the impression from the article that they were talking about how much money it makes - I presume sales targets are made when making these games. It seems ridiculous to base licence costs on a subjective score. But overall I think it's definitly a step in the right direction.
Film Guru - May 26, 2004 07:09 AM (GMT)
If PA has something to say on the issue, it's usually worth posting:
__________ - May 26, 2004 06:24 PM (GMT)
i found it funny that the producers of "Enter The Matrix" seem to think that just because there game sold well that it was a good game... it wasnt
Film Guru - May 27, 2004 12:30 AM (GMT)
Penny Arcade was sent a really interesting email from a games developer concerning the new WB statement. Originally I was all for the new WB ploy, but after reading this, to say the least my perspective changed on the issue. Excuse the language.
"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."
"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."
Beast - May 27, 2004 01:58 AM (GMT)
yeah totally. I have a friend that worked for Blue Tongue in Melbourne for a while (now he works for a gba game making company that I forget) and he often complained about those issues.
The Jurrasic Park game they made (whatever it's called) is a great example -which changed gameplay style completely a few times.
The Jurrasic Park game they made (whatever it's called) is a great example -which changed gameplay style completely a few times.