http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/columns/tech_reporter_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000517289

now thats funny!

Yea, this just has Bad News written all over it... as if game developers weren't struggling to exist as it is.

The worst part is that it's often the publishers who are responsible for horrible releases because they are pressuring the devs to finish the game to meet some arbitrary schedule, or in some cases just plain ship it without finishing it.

I suspect when they say developer, they mean publisher. It's the publisher who buys the licence from the film studio, the developer is usually just "hired help"...

Heh. I read this on slashdot. The general feeling was that it would force publishers not to release buggy and crappy games. The problem is that reviews don't just deal with bugs. There are some movie or tv properties that just dont translate well to games (and vice versa.)

There could be a lot of reasons that a game doesn't review as well as hoped for. Saturated market, not the reviewers cup of tea, politics and reviewer perceptions could all play a part. A good game could even get a poor review if it is released just after another game that raises the bar in respect to gameplay or graphics

The other problem is that the owner of the property often interferes enough to make the game into a poor performer. I remember reading (a few years ago) that Paramount refused to allow Star Trek games to 'kill' their principle characters. Kirk, Picard, and friends must survive at all costs. IIRC, there was even a prohibition on using those characters for deathmatch play. Apparently, a lot of the early ST games were simply not fun for this reason, as well as others.


In the end, it is ultimately up to the owner of the property to ensure that it is up to their standards. No one else has that responsibility, not the publisher and not the developer. If the game is not up to scratch, don't release it, fix it.

I agree, Bluecat.

I've been involved with film licenced games and the owner of the property had regular meetings with management to see the game content, art quality etc. It'd be unfair for them to say, after the game is shipped, that it wasn't upto quality - they had able opportunity to see the quality of it.

Well it may sever to break developers dependancies on licenses so they can make games with good gameplay and unique content that are fun to play...

I can't remember a single movie-based game wich was somewhat good. It's always like that and it's what people expect - crap. (It's ok if you are a fan)

Making a good full blown game takes it's time. You just can't sit down with your 100 people team and work the next 3 years on such a game. Everyone will have forgotten that movie by the time you've finished it.

Also time and money involved to make a full blown AAA game increased over the last years alot - and there is no end in sight.

Imo it's just another way for WB to get some $.

I think it would be nice if the game studios did the same thing to movie studios who want to turn game properties into movies. :)

Haha.

Oh and comic based movies are also usually pretty bad (spiderman was really dissapointing).

Originally posted by oNyx
I can't remember a single movie-based game wich was somewhat good. It's always like that and it's what people expect - crap. (It's ok if you are a fan)

Star Wars: Galactic Battlegrounds. Rather than foolishly attempting another in-house RTS attempt (after their first bombed), LucasArts licensed the AOE2 engine. The result is an awesome RTS set in the Star Wars universe, and with game play significantly different than AOE2 (even though LucasArts didn't add all that much to the engine). So a game that licenses both a movie property and an already finished hit game can in fact be good :)

I think this review system is going to introduce all sorts of problems. I agree with what Bluecat says, and I would like to add that this may also result in some rather extreme bribing of reviewers (slip a few reviewers $1000 each or lose much much more to penalities.. no brainer).

On the other hand, this may in fact greatly discourage the creation of games based on movies that shouldn't be made into games. Seeing as those titles are based mostly on greed and not some desire to create an awesome game in x universe, it's hard to feel too sorry for the publishers that find that the slop that they have released isn't going to cut it.

Not a perfect solution, but not without its benefits.

Interesting ideas - I think the article covers all the different aspects of the argument fairly well, actually.

The whole thing is a PR move by the studios: "Yes, we know licensed games are usually crap, and we're trying to do something about it."

Or, to put it another way: "Please keep buying the games based on movies."

The simple fact is, licensed products have *zero* incentive to be any better than they have to be to sell to the core audience. They have no such incentive now. They will *NEVER* have any incentive to improve.

As someone has already said, the only way to make sure a licensed product doesn't degrade your IP is to take full responsibility for managing the product, and choosing to ditch it if it isn't up to your standards.

-David

Wow... I must have totally misunderstood the gist of the article the first time I read it. :)

My interpretation was that the publisher was going to hold out royalties from the developer.... if it's actually a studio holding out licensee royalties... well, that's totally different.

no, you got it. It's just a weird perspective, the publisher will only give the studios royalties if the game scores 70% or higher in reviews.

Typically royalty rates for retail developers are 3-5% and only given to the developer after the money origionally fronted by the publisher has been repaid. This is how studios like blizzard become fabulously wealthy. They make a lot more money then it costs them to build one. However, a lot of studios fail to break even and never see a penny byond what the publisher paid them to develop it.

Sorry, but what is says is that if games don't achieve 70%, the publisher will have ot pay higher license roaylties to studio:

"Games based on Warner Bros. licenses must achieve at least a 70% rating, or incur an increase in royalty rates."
"An escalating royalty rate kicks in to help compensate us for the brand damage that's taking place," says Hall. "The further away from 70% it gets, the more expensive the royalty rate becomes. So, frankly, if the publisher delivers on what they promised -- to produce a great game -- it's not even an issue."

Basically, when a publisher/developer does a game based movie, they pay a certain ammount to the studio. With this deals, Hall wants the publisher/developer to increase these payments as sort of fines when the game sucks.

I actually think this is great! No more crappy game based movies that sell millions just 'cause they are game based.

Yay for WB.

I fully expect that certain reviews will be expecting $1000s in the post from publishers in order to give their games a decent review. No questions asked.

Cas :)

As somebody posted earlier, why not meet with the publisher/developer once every 2 weeks to look over the progress and make comments.

I agree with WB concerns. Why should a crap game sell millions off the back of the movie. But using reviewers as the guildline is plain dumb, and opens up all kinds of interesting channels for corruption!
At the end of the day, WB made the bloody film, they should decide whether its good enough before the bloody release. If it gets out the door and scores 40%, what the hell were WB 'quality control' doing during the development? Pah! Im fed up with this palming off bollocks. 'Its his fault' culture.

Simply put, if WB give it the thumbs up, but it gets crap reviews... tough luck.

On a more lighthearted note, I remember about 5-6 years ago at the release of a HUGE game ( no names. As big as they come. ) the publisher flew reviewers from all over the world in to this amazing resort somewhere stateside. For 2 weeks they were pampered. Im talking everyting they need. And I mean EVERYTHING and ANYTHING. Use your imagination.
Anyway, after the two weeks, they gave them a copy of the new game, and flew them back home with a pat on the back and a wink. You can guess the rest.

And, ive said this a million times before..... publishers are not the cause of all evil in the games industry. Far from it. The devs have been just as stoopid over the years. Anyone who was in the industry in the early to mid nineties will know this, or had thier head in the sand.
Publishers threw millions and millions at devs during this time, and the devs squandered it through crap management, and constant concept changes. No wonder the publishers became so bitter and twisted. Thats why they only are interested in licences and franchises... because they make them money. Devs with big, original ideas frighten the hell outa publishers not because Pubs they are evil. They were simply traumatised in the ninties, and never recovered.

good god..... what the hell am i doing..... ive got work to do!!
* blah *
:)

Originally posted by BongPig
As somebody posted earlier, why not meet with the publisher/developer once every 2 weeks to look over the progress and make comments.


This would just make a 2 year game to a 6-7-8-9-... game.

Studios may comment on the overall quality of the game, but they know little about development, what is ok to do and what is not, etc etc.

If studios get even more in the way, they will just spend months debatting over it wouldn't be nicer if th eblack in the characters clothes wouldn't be pure black but rather brighter (#0f0f0f)

So, in the case of a film like the Matrix, you dont think WB should have a huge say in the artistic direction and feel of the game? Bloody right they should. If the dev doesnt like constraints, why the hell is that dev doing movie tie-ins!?

Keep on blaming the Publishers for all crap and late games. Its so mis-guided.

If studios get even more in the way, they will just spend months debatting over it wouldn't be nicer if th eblack in the characters clothes wouldn't be pure black but rather brighter (#0f0f0f)

Already happens.

So, in the case of a film like the Matrix, you dont think WB should have a huge say in the artistic direction and feel of the game? Bloody right they should.

With the ETM game, the Wachowski Brothers (sp) were an integral part of the design team & were involved with its production every step of the way. If Warner Brothers think the game stinks, then those two are probably more responsible than Bruno Bonnell is.


I presume Warner will be sending a cheque to EA if the upcoming Catwoman film gets less than 70% on Rotten Tomatoes?

I think this is a reflection on how big and important the games market has become. A Major Studio *will* spend extra money and time on a Major Movie, passing it through executives and testing it on the "unwashed masses" at every stage from script to screen. If something isn't right then they change it.

Games up to this point have always been a separate thing to be licensed as a tie-in like T-shirts, trading cards, lunch boxes, etc. But games are no longer a niche market, nor a minor form of entertainment. It's not a stretch to say that for some people games are more significant as entertainment than movies. If Major Studios want the quality of their Major Movie in a game, they'll have to get involved like they do with the movie, and not leave it to chance like they could afford to do when the game market was less mature market-wise and technology-wise.

I know that sounds like a nightmare for the developer, but that's what those who work in Hollywood have been dealing with since Major Studios started in the '20s. Some people choose to be in Indie Films for this reason, like, I suppose, why some people choose to be in Indie Games.

Since games are no longer a niche tie-in, then, it's a shame they still feel the need to rope them to a movie in the first place...