Somewhere, an Acclaim exec is crying

[ManekiNeko]

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2004/05/26/news_6099292.html

Warner Bros. isn't going to let just any game carry their movie licenses. If the game in question sucks, the designers will be forced to pay extra for the license.

JR

[Darth Sensei]

I've been wondering how long it would take before this would happen. It's about freaking time. Bad games IMHO actually tarnish a good movie's image and can hurt later sales.

D

[sisko]

What a stupid idea.

First,what reviewers state is entirely subjective. More often than not, good movies and games get poor reviews.

Second, what if the movies suck in the first place? You want me to make a good game out of that steaming pile? That's pretty tough to do.

Third, less and less companies will start seeking out licenses with such companies due to increased risk. The fact is, not a terribly large amount of games get a 70%+ ranking compared with all games released. The companies think they will make more money out of this? Think again.

[ManekiNeko]

This could result in a nasty backlash. Rockstar is already bullying video game magazines and web sites to give their products the highest possible ratings. One can only imagine what will happen once other film studios start following Warner Bros.' lead and punish game companies for negative reviews.

JR

[Daniel Thomas]

If these reviews weren't slapped together by semi-literate, fanboy prozines, then I'd think this was a good idea. However, considering how easy it is to get a good review in, say, GamePro or Game Informer, what's the point? Don't the advertisers still throw their weight around to get good copy?

Most game reviews still sound like they're targeting lonely, horny ("hornly?") teenage boys. I can't imagine any corporation tying their royalty rates to that.

[poe]

If these reviews weren't slapped together by semi-literate, fanboy prozines, then I'd think this was a good idea. However, considering how easy it is to get a good review in, say, GamePro or Game Informer, what's the point? Don't the advertisers still throw their weight around to get good copy?

Most game reviews still sound like they're targeting lonely, horny ("hornly?") teenage boys. I can't imagine any corporation tying their royalty rates to that.

What WBIE is doing is using sites like Gamerankings for a gauge, which averages out every review from most publications/websites. Even if you buy a good review or two (or eight), the other dozen or so reviews would still make or break your overall rating.

[GaijinPunch]

It's a good thing I don't read any game reviews. :)

[Flack]

Seems like the outcome will be obvious:

Sites that repeatedly give marks below 70% will quit getting free promos

or

Sites that repeatedly give marks below 70% will receive "incentives" to give higher ratings.

or

70% will become the equivalent of a failing grade. "This game sucks, it gets a ... 70%."

or

Companies will quit basing games on movies that suck. Complaining about a Charlies' Angels game doing back is like complaining about losing a race in your car that has square wheels. Bad planning from the beginning.

[Ed Oscuro]

Yeah, saw this on Gamasutra :]

Looks like a good thing.

[-hellvin-]

http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3

Sounds like the perfect plan to me. Don't make shitty games on rushed movie licenses. Just don't do it. Maybe it will start getting through developer's heads (or most likely not).

The only movie game that looks good to me right now is The Chronicles Of Riddick. Absolutely no fathomable interest in the movie at ALL but I think I just may be picking up the game.

[Ed Oscuro]

Funny comic :)

I wouldn't blame developers - after all, since when did programmers have any common sense about game design? :P It comes down to companies putting the right amount of time and money into games and whose leaders don't bludgeon their underlings into cranking out a bad game. After all, we have this (http://www.digitpress.com/archives/kunkel_batman_1.htm) sordid tale to remind us...

If you ask me it's really funny that the folks at Atari are the first to complain seeing how they used to be owned by Twentieth Century Fox.

Ooh la la!

[zmweasel]

I wish Warner Bros. the best of luck in hiring experienced developers henceforth. Developers already get regularly screwed out of money and credit as it is; only the most naive and desperate studio (hello, Black Ops) would gamble its income on the rantings of fanboy reviewers who know nothing about the development process and who are inclined to dislike movie tie-ins by default.

The "good" news is that, if this practice catches on (which it won't), reviews will actually be considered relevant by the videogame industry.

-- Z.

[christianscott27]

time, its all about time man!

goes all the way back to the 2600, i talked to a parker bros. programmer who worked on the star wars license and it was true back then. companies want the games to hit shelves at the marketing peak which is not always in keeping with how much time you need to polish a game. i hope the game companies are allowed more advance time to work on a license, i'm convinced thats behind 90% of the crappy movie tie ins.

heres a game thats better than the movie its based on

reign of fire

any other games that best the movie they're based on?

[zmweasel]

Seems like the outcome will be obvious:

Sites that repeatedly give marks below 70% will quit getting free promos

Developers don't send out promos; publishers do. If anything, publishers would be happy with sub-70% ratings, as they'd be able to fuck developers out of cash.


Sites that repeatedly give marks below 70% will receive "incentives" to give higher ratings.

Uh...no. Press junkets are the closest thing the videogame industry has to outright bribery.


70% will become the equivalent of a failing grade. "This game sucks, it gets a ... 70%."

Again, nope. Publishers control ads, not developers.

-- Z.

[Ed Oscuro]

Zach, your points make sense but...an excuse to "fuck developers out of cash?" Time Warner seems to be most interested in keeping their licenses intact. While there's always a chance what you say will happen (don't doubt that it will cause a conflict somewhere down the line), it seems to me that they will NOT be looking to do business with companies that "screw up" the license...the message I'm getting is that TW wants 9/10+ and they won't deal with folks who won't work in such a fashion.

The concerns are justified (and I think that if TW wants its good games it damn well better put its money into them), but I would see a pattern of individual flare-ups as a result, not an overall patern. There are only so many top-level developers out there to burn through, after all.

[SoulBlazer]

In theory, this sounds like a good idea -- WB wants to make sure that GOOD games are made out of their properties. Remember how the new Tomb Raider game was blamed for the movie not doing well? Or was it the other way around? And taking a average of reviews from MANY sources seems the best way to throw out the worst and best.

In pratice, it just won't work. Many reviews are stupid and written by people who don't know dick, to be perfectly honest. Gaming companies will STILL crank out games to meet launch times and not give them the care and attention that they deserve. The programers will just have more pressure to deal with from their bosses.

I WISH we could do something like this -- anything to increase the ratio of bad to good games in the market would be golden. :)

[chrisbid]

the ultimate irony is that warner owned atari during the 2600 ET debacle, and was ultimately responsible for the game being rushed. the game still sold over a million copies, and it didnt detract from the image of ET being one of the greatest movies of the 1980's.

[Ed Oscuro]

Well, I'll be...so they did. I guess the 20th Century Fox label was completely seperate and unowned. :O

Haha, I almost wrote the right thing the first time - after checking my 20th Cent. Fox games I thought it was wrong. :/

[zmweasel]

Zach, your points make sense but...an excuse to "fuck developers out of cash?" Time Warner seems to be most interested in keeping their licenses intact. While there's always a chance what you say will happen (don't doubt that it will cause a conflict somewhere down the line), it seems to me that they will NOT be looking to do business with companies that "screw up" the license...the message I'm getting is that TW wants 9/10+ and they won't deal with folks who won't work in such a fashion.

If Warner Bros. is interested in high-quality tie-in games, it needs to give developers 1) lots of cash, 2) lots of time, and 3) solid IPs upon which to build games. Instead, it's threatening to financially punish developers if their games don't receive glowing praise from reviewers who, with few exceptions, don't know shit about the pressures of tie-in videogame development. I can't imagine ANY decent developer signing up for a Warner Bros. tie-in project under that condition.

Tie-in games don't sell because of quality, or lack thereof; they sell because of the popularity of the license. Bandai's tie-in games are always mediocre, and they always sell by the bucketload.

What if a developer signs up for a Warner tie-in game that the studio assures them is going to be fantastic, but turns out to be atrocious? It doesn't matter how much gameplay the developer sinks into the tie-in. It's going to sell poorly, and receive poor reviews. (Again, most reviewers are inherently biased against tie-ins.)

Warner's policy will also help to quash what little creativity and originality exists in the American game industry. Why would a developer take a chance on an idea that might be poorly received by critics? Better to stick with a proven genre and/or a proven game engine.

And there's already a very effective incentive for game developers to do good work: royalties.

-- Z.

[esquire]

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2004/05/26/news_6099292.html

Warner Bros. isn't going to let just any game carry their movie licenses. If the game in question sucks, the designers will be forced to pay extra for the license.

JR

Yeah, but what if the movie upon which the game is based sucks to begin with? cough...cough...Matrix Reloaded

[zmweasel]

In theory, this sounds like a good idea -- WB wants to make sure that GOOD games are made out of their properties. Remember how the new Tomb Raider game was blamed for the movie not doing well? Or was it the other way around? And taking a average of reviews from MANY sources seems the best way to throw out the worst and best.

So who determines which sources are worth a damn? For example, I have absolutely no respect for IGN's reviewers or their ratings. I value the opinions and insight of Roger Ebert; I don't value the opinions and "insight" of the critics on MovieWhore.com. And if I was a developer, I certainly wouldn't want my financial future riding on the whims of people who don't understand the first thing about what I do.

-- Z.

[zmweasel]

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2004/05/26/news_6099292.html

Warner Bros. isn't going to let just any game carry their movie licenses. If the game in question sucks, the designers will be forced to pay extra for the license.

JR

Yeah, but what if the movie upon which the game is based sucks to begin with? cough...cough...Matrix Reloaded

EXACTLY. Is Warner going to ask the Wachowski Brothers to give back some of the millions they were paid because The Matrix Reloaded received a score of 7.2 on Internet Movie Database? Or because The Matrix Revolutions received a score of 6.3?

Jason Hall sucks.

-- Z.

[Ed Oscuro]

Yes, I mentioned (in the second mini-paragraph that got cut out of your quote, Zach) that publishers had better put a good deal of money into their developers; time is another factor, but now I think that the Enter the Matrix game is a great example of failing to do what the Lord of the Rings games (movie tie-in versions) managed to accomplish: giving players an experience that puts them "in the movie" and giving developers access to the movie's staff as if they were all working together on the game.

I would point out that Enter the Matrix currently has 72% on Game Rankings, but that's almost a thing of luck...actually, I'd have to say that - given the evidence (after reading through a half dozen reviews or so) Shiny Entertainment should've been the ones doing the punishing. They were obviously pressed past their breaking point by the publisher, and given quite lackluster support in the first place.

Instead of art assets they were given gray ads for the Pentium IV, cell phones, and Powerade machines to cram into texture space (incidentially, neither Intel or any other company should've allowed their product's logos to make their way into the game in grayscale); the FMV they recieved was - by all accounts - lackluster and recommended for the hardcore only (and that's coming from BenT, who declared himself a Matrix fan...ouch).

After looking at this evidence it seems to me that the president of Atari is quite right. While I wasn't quite able to see all sides of this argument an hour or two ago, I can tell that Penny Arcade is certainly adrift from the swing of things. They've certainly entered another of their "uneducated buffoons painting with a really wide brush."

I will say that I agreed from the start with the Atari fellow in that this is an insult to Atari's business - it's unfortunate that more developers haven't sufficient input to voice their opinions in such a way, but also unfortunate that this statement came from one of the "suits" and not, say, a project lead. I also was rather shocked by the TW fellow's comments about the (apparently) bad, evil, and lecherous game industry...this is coming from the industry that's had as many years as he cares to mention to do things right and do THEIR part in making sure developers do what's right. This approach seems about as helpful as the teacher who canes a first grade student for failing to comprehend the content of an advanced book without ever checking the kid's progress or offering help.

I don't think that's a bad metaphor for the situation, either - if anything, it's too forgiving! Game companies don't fail because they want to...but they do, and often. After reading about Seven Samurai 20XX and incidents of developers getting screwed by retail outlets for years, it seems to me that game developers would be right to say

"And Time Warner, you can KEEP your shitty licenses for all we care."

[Ed Oscuro]

Another question - does anybody have Jason Hall's resume or otherwise able to tell me if he's one and the same...THAT Jason Hall, from the days of the Lithtech Engine? The one that is mentioned so lovingly on Old Man Murray's site? (http://www.oldmanmurray.com/news/news8.html)

Speaking of which, I think I have a winner for "hot avatar week" :>

Added:

http://www.forumplanet.com/gamespy/topic.asp?fid=1422&tid=1381072

Somebody mentioned that this would cause DEVELOPERS to bribe reviewers! Heh heh.

[Duncan]

[You know, I hadn't planned for this to be quite so long - which means you've now been warned :evil: - but I really like this rant now that I've finished it. It'll be going up on my 'blog soon. :)]

The final line of the article:


"The game industry has had its time to exploit movie studios all day long and to get away with producing inferior products," said [WBIE senior vice president Jason] Hall. "But, with Warner Brothers, no more...the bad games are over."

What the hell is that about?

Give me a movie or TV show that would be worth making a game about, first. Then we can discuss rating scales.

I'm reminded of the "bad ol' days" of the NES, when there was a whole glut of vaguely interesting games based on major media that - to be honest - really sucked. For instance, was Back to the Future a movie that just cried out for a video game variant? Or Cool World? Or any number of Nickelodeon TV shows? Fast-forward to today, and I'm sure you can think of a few film-game pairs in the same category - as well as the ever-present set of Nickelodeon-themed titles.

I know that both the game companies and the film makers would prefer to have their respective creations (the game and the movie) to be available for public consumption at the same time - such is the beauty of cross-marketing. However, I'm sure that fans of a particular license would be willing to wait a little longer if the game gets delayed in the pursuit of quality - maybe put an ad for the game in as a trailer at the beginning of the film when it shows in theaters. To the best of my knowledge, I can't think of a time that this has ever happened - maybe the game companies are afraid that the big screen and 35mm film's poor "resolution" will make the game look crappy. Valid point, I suppose.

I also know that the temptation from game companies to simply pick up (and for studios to offer) whatever licenses become available - with the knowledge that revenues could be huge no matter what they throw out - must be a big factor in deciding what games to produce. And this, of course, is what Warner is trying to avoid - obviously, they want products using their licenses to be of a high quality so that the public thinks good things about them. This, too, is understandable.

But this avoids the issue that's been hanging over the film and TV industry for some time: there needs to be a better understanding within Hollywood boardrooms as to what makes a good game. There is still a serious dearth of TV and film executives who have any knowledge whatsoever about the game industry - they just assume that if a game's packaged well and has a cool character, the kids will buy it and like it. To some extent, this is true, but since games are interactive - and since movies/TV are not - they simply don't get the full picture. (An example of this idea: Pokemon movies generally suck, while the Pokemon games are generally excellent.)

Which, by way of equal responsibility, brings me back to the game companies. Obviously (or hopefullly!), they know by now what makes a good game. But it could be said that, having their own constantly-interactive point of view about media, they may not necessarily know what makes a good movie or TV show. After all, a good film gives the viewer a certain feeling or draws them into a unique point of view. Many modern games, despite massive increases in technology over the past few years, still do not manage to do this well. They may control well, and be beautifully designed and programmed, and they may even be incredibly fun to play. But they often won't provide the same "I'm right here!" feeling that you get from a well-crafted film. (An example of this idea: games based on horror movie licenses generally suck, while many recent horror movies have been excellent.)

I think you see by now what I'm leading to. There needs to be a serious meeting of the minds between game companies and film/TV companies. The game people need to really explain what creates a good game, and the movie people need to really explain what creates a good movie. The two groups can then put all these insights down on a piece of paper, throw in a particular license, and work out whether or not the two media can come together. Maybe there could be a yearly convention or something, I don't know.

Even if it's a brief meeting, any discussion is better than the current system of "here's a movie, make a game out of it" that's been prevalent since the dawn of video games.

That, then, is my take on the larger issue. (Rant over, if you will. :D )

Now, to address the article specifically. My real problem with Warner's new policy is that it smacks of "my media is better than your media". It's like auto companies trying to tell motorcycle companies that any accidents involving both types of machine must always be judged as the fault of the motorcycle, because cars are supposedly superior. (Rough analogy, I know, but it's the best I could come up with at 2:00 AM - give me a break. :) )

All I hope is that this doesn't become a trend - game companies need to be as loud and vocal as they can in their protestation of such tactics before other film outlets start thinking this is a good idea.

However, if it turns out that the two factions eventually start to figure each other out, then I think we can all say goodbye to Acclaim and THQ. LOL

[Ed Oscuro]

To the best of my knowledge, I can't think of a time that this has ever happened - maybe the game companies are afraid that the big screen and 35mm film's poor "resolution" will make the game look crappy. Valid point, I suppose.
That's not the reason. 35mm film can put out a pretty crisp picture, certainly better than the game will look on most folks' TV with composite A/V LOL

The real reason is likely that movie studios have been accustomed to people coming and begging for licenses to make official lunchboxes, comics, and the like. This is no different to movie studios. Anybody who knows how much more complex a game (ANY game) will be than the majority of licensed products can tell there's a fatal flaw in the thinking which leads companies to think that if they just give the game companies some assets that'll lead to good games.

Another thing that I have to laugh at...there's no mention of an upper limit on the amount of royalties that might be demanded! Back in the early days of the Apple II and the Atari 800 a company called Shepardson Microsystems, Inc. ported Basic to the '800; their work was so quick that they had it finished before the contract was signed - and the contract had room for a $1000 penalty or bonus if the work appeared after a date in April '79. They already had it done by the December 28th delivery of the contract! Of course there was an upper limit on the amount of royalties they could collect. Heh.

So the idea of a royalty or penalty is nothing new - it's just that given the way games should be made (I'd say the Lord of the Rings games are a decent enough example) this doesn't seem that great an idea. It'd be better than saying "you'll be penalized for showing up late" if there was a choice, but I'm sure they're keeping the late work clauses in there as well. :/

[calthaer]

Why is everyone focusing on the reviewers and the effect this will have on them? I'm more interested in the effect on the game-makers themselves.

Best case scenario: no more games based on licensed crap, and more original titles.

[Ed Oscuro]

Jason Hall might just drive his game licensing section of TW right out of business, as you say :D

[SoulBlazer]

That's why I said in THEORY this can help weed out the GOOD tie in's (I'll mention the LOTR games like some other people have -- good games, really!) from the bad stuff.

In reality, though, Zach is right. I like the idea, but I can't see a good way to impliment it.

[Aussie2B]

Best case scenario: no more games based on licensed crap, and more original titles.

My thoughts exactly. If this results in less crappy licensed games (or just less licensed games period), that's a good thing for me, as a game player, at least.

However, the planned is obviously very flawed in that Warner Bros., if they're so worried about the quality of how their licensed media is being handled, could have great control over the end result themselves if they just knew more about game development. Want a high quality game based on a movie? Pick a movie well-suited for a game transition, license it to skilled developers, help them come up with a good concept for the game, provide them with ample materials from the movie and access to the actors/creators, give them adequate time to code and refine it, and there you go.

[ManekiNeko]

Y'know, Aussie, they HAVE tried breaking into the video game business before. The first time was with Atari, and the next time was with Tengen, aka Time Warner Interactive. They failed both times, and they weren't alone... most film studios have had little success breaking into the video game industry. Remember Fox Games (aka Fox Interactive), Sony Imagesoft, or Viacom New Media? Of course you don't.

JR

P.S. All right, all right, Sony made a big splash as a video game console designer, but that's only because they were making tech gear well before they got into the film industry. Even now, Sony rarely makes their own games, and it's even rarer that one is based on one of their movies.

[Aussie2B]

I'm not really suggesting that they try to break into the gaming business. I just think they should get slightly more involved with the companies they sell the licenses to if they're just going to sit back and whine that their properties are being poorly represented in games (while they still rake in tons of dough regardless).

[Daria]

(aka Fox Interactive)

Virtual Springfield was cool... :P

And how about Lucas Arts? They seemed to have done pretty well.

[Ed Oscuro]

Y'know, Aussie, they HAVE tried breaking into the video game business before. The first time was with Atari, and the next time was with Tengen, aka Time Warner Interactive. They failed both times, and they weren't alone... most film studios have had little success breaking into the video game industry. Remember Fox Games (aka Fox Interactive), Sony Imagesoft, or Viacom New Media? Of course you don't.
Actually, ManekiNeko, I'm pretty sure most of us have heard of Sony Imagesoft, Fox Interactive (a little game called Aliens vs. Predator) and these other games.

The failure of a company to market games it developed on its own - anybody who says that Time Warner Interactive couldn't and didn't make good games is sadly ignorant - is completely irrelevant to whether or not it has the resources in-house to help game developers who've been awarded movie licenses.

End of text.

[zmweasel]

And how about Lucas Arts? They seemed to have done pretty well.

I wouldn't say that. For every good or great Star Wars game (Knights of the Old Republic), there's a mediocre or terrible one (Masters of Teras Kasi). And this is a developer/publisher with almost unlimited access to Star Wars assets.

-- Z.

[Aussie2B]

Actually, ManekiNeko, I'm pretty sure most of us have heard of Sony Imagesoft, Fox Interactive (a little game called Aliens vs. Predator) and these other games.

Yes, I'm well aware of those companies. :P I had a stranger curse me out (on my web site's guestbook) for no apparent reason for owning Bram Stoker's Dracula on SNES (even though I never said anything about it on my site besides list on my game collection page among hundreds of actually good games). Oh the shame.

[Raccoon Lad]

As someone who works in the game industry, allow me to put in my 2 cents.

Licensors suck.




...allow me to explain. I've worked on a number of liscenced games, and the problem we developers have is that the game is expected to be on shelves the same time the movie is in theatres/ the show is in it's peak.
Along with the tight production schedules this often causes, there is often a DROUGHT of reference.
Developers NEED reference. At best, we get a synopsis of the script (if it's a movie), or if it's a TV show, we usually have to go out and BUY videos/DVD's of the show ourselves.
along with that, we usually get a "style guide" which is basically a book of reference pics of ONLY the main characters, usually accompanied by a CD that has nice print ready versions of said pics. These are designed to be used by people making lunch boxes or crappy licnsed toys. (AKA, not very usefull for game developers)
and then, on top of that, there's the company themselves:
I've personally dealt with Warner on a project or 2 I worked on (Powerpuff Girls games. (utter crap, BTW)). The company I was working at was in LA. The show was made in Burbank (only 2 towns over). Guess who we had to deal with?
... Cartoon Network ATLANTA!

that's right, the people who were judging the quality of our output didn't even actually work on the project we were doing.

and when we occasionally DID get assistance from the Burbank people.... the Atlanta office would say it was wrong. (we had a writer for the show go over our script, and atlanta wanted to make changes to the stuff written by the actual show's writer!)

licensed games suck for everyone involved, especially the gamers.

[zmweasel]

the ultimate irony is that warner owned atari during the 2600 ET debacle, and was ultimately responsible for the game being rushed. the game still sold over a million copies, and it didnt detract from the image of ET being one of the greatest movies of the 1980's.

Very good point. All the crappy Star Wars games didn't wound that franchise; Lucas did. Enter the Matrix didn't wound that franchise; the Wachowski Brothers (one of them preoccupied with his pending sex-change operation) did.

Thanks also to Raccoon Lad for sharing his experiences. I can't imagine he'd be thrilled with the possibility of having bread taken off his table after doing the best he could with a miserable license and a useless licensor.

Jason Hall SUCKS.

-- Z.

[ManekiNeko]

Very good point. All the crappy Star Wars games didn't wound that franchise; Lucas did. Enter the Matrix didn't wound that franchise; the Wachowski Brothers (one of them preoccupied with his pending sex-change operation) did.

Say WHAT?!

That's the first time I ever heard of that. Looks like they won't be calling them the Wachowski BROTHERS for long...


Thanks also to Raccoon Lad for sharing his experiences. I can't imagine he'd be thrilled with the possibility of having bread taken off his table after doing the best he could with a miserable license and a useless licensor.

I dunno... the Powerpuff Girls don't translate all that well to the video game medium, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it a "miserable" license. Mojo Jojo A-Gogo demonstrated that you could put the Powerpuff Girls in a clever game engine that was faithful to the license. With some improvements, it could have been to the Game Boy Advance what Air Zonk was to the TurboDuo.


Jason Hall SUCKS.

Er... who?

JR

[Ed Oscuro]

the Powerpuff Girls don't translate all that well to the video game medium, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it a "miserable" license.
I'm sure it doesn't translate with clueless suits breathing down your neck, but if they'd been able to make the game they'd wanted to I'm sure it would've been pretty good. Again, shades of Bill Kunkel's misfortune and the ancient Chinese saying evident here.

[Daria]

And how about Lucas Arts? They seemed to have done pretty well.

I wouldn't say that. For every good or great Star Wars game (Knights of the Old Republic), there's a mediocre or terrible one (Masters of Teras Kasi). And this is a developer/publisher with almost unlimited access to Star Wars assets.

-- Z.

ManekiNeko was referring to movie companies turn video game developers/publishers. My reference of Lucas Arts was that as a developer they havn't done too badly, I really wouldn't know or care if they've published some shitty Star Wars lincesed games.

They have however produced some brillant adventure games in the day (Grim Fandango anyone?)

So yeah compared to Sony or Fox interactive, Lucas Arts hasn't done too badly.

[Ed Oscuro]

Lucasarts hasn't done bad - financially...they just killed a new Sam & Max game, though.

I actually have a title each at TW Interactive and Fox I like better (outside of older LA stuff) and Sony Imagesoft's Mickey Mania cartridge for the Genesis is amazing - and a little bit of fun, too.

[Raccoon Lad]

Well, aside from the game being filled with animations done by people who should never have been hired to do animations, and BG art that was done by an underskilled art director, the game was also pushed out a month early by the publisher as well.

Of course, the stuff I managed to put into the game without having it mangled by others first turned out ok.

But PPG M-j-a-g-g was NOT the only licensed game I've had the misfortune of working on. ...or the only PPG game I've had the misfortune of working on either (unrelased GameCube PPG game "PPG: Shock of Ages")

[zmweasel]

That's the first time I ever heard of that. Looks like they won't be calling them the Wachowski BROTHERS for long...

More info about it here: http://moviepoopshoot.com/elsewhere/80.html


Er... who?

Warner Interactive's senior VP, the dude who was quoted numerous times in the article you referenced at the start of this thread.

-- Z.

[zmweasel]

Lucasarts hasn't done bad - financially...they just killed a new Sam & Max game, though.

In fact, LucasArts is struggling a bit. Gladius was a huge flop, Secret Weapons Over Normandy underperformed, Armed & Dangerous came and went, and the sequels to Full Throttle and Sam & Max were canned.

KotOR was the only real success in LucasArts' 2003 lineup, but it wasn't a megahit because it was limited to the Xbox userbase. If it had shipped on PS2 in addition to Xbox, the sky would've been the limit.

An article about LucasArts' recent layoffs: http://www.ferrago.com/story/3444

Mercenaries was one of the best games at E3, and the Star Wars squad-based shooter should do very well, and KotOR 2 will be huge, so LucasArts will be fine in the long run.

-- Z.

[Ed Oscuro]

Ack, damn me for never buying Gladius (it's on "the list," though) and forgetting about Normandy. Both looked really good and had apparently high production values - though the X-Wings and TIE fighters I spotted in Normandy's flash site's screenshot section weren't indicative of that. It seems to me that LucasArts might be losing touch with the gaming world, providing a product in Normandy that gamers feel is already covered by the Battlefield titles.

I don't know; I wish these titles had rocked the world but it didn't happen...and a lot of folks are saying they do nothing but pump out Star Wars titles, that they might as well rename to SWI, "Star Wars Interactive." Really rather grim. Again, I'd read a headline about the layoffs but didn't read into it - I'll be doing that now :P

[Kid Ice]

IMO there are many poor games that get good reviews, but very few good ones that get bad reviews, so what Warners is doing makes no sense. To think a bad game can ruin a movie franchise is preposterous, and reeks of arrogance. And I'm sure these developers have every intention of making a good game, even if it is a licensed rush job.

If Warners is so concerned about reviews, maybe they should consider refunding money to people who go to see their poorly reviewed movies.

[lendelin]

I'm as much disturbed like most of you by the long list of terrible games based on movie licenses. Does Time Warner's threat solve the problem? Not in the least. Is it an outrageous hypocritical proposal to make more money? Certainly.

The success or failure of the MOVIE determines the sales figures of a game, not the other way around. The sub-par Matrix game didn't hurt the movie in the least, but it SOLD unfortunately well because of the attractive movie license and exclusive movie footage; because the quality of the movie decides about the success of the game, the risk lies actually more with game publishers, not with the movie studio.

Activision bought the rights for the upcoming Shark Tale. Does Activision get money back when the movie flops and will hurt sales of the game, based on the elusive ‘quaility' estimation of movie reviewers? Warner Bros. was well aware that the game rights for the incredibly successful Matrix would boost the sales for the game, and Warner Bros. put a price tag on it. The lesser the estimated risk for the game publisher, the more attractive the movie, the more game publishers have to pay. Warner Bros. cashed in; and so did the Wachowski Bros. by shooting exclusive movie sequences for the game. I don't think anyone put a gun at the heads of the executive board of Warner or the Wachowski Bros. to sell the license.

Movies and games are different products, and movie studios and game publishers take a calculated risk for their own products, and this includes selling movie licenses. Warner Bros. isn't disturbed by the game reviews, but they are disturbed by the good sales figures of the game which in hindsight raised concern about giving the movie license away for not enough money.

If Warner Bros. is so deeply concerned about the image of this specific movie, they 1) could not sell it at all, 2) have by contract a final approval clause if they are not satisfied with the product. In case 1) they would not get additional money, in case 2) they would get significantly less money for the license. Instead following these effective rules for the demonstrated concern about game quality, they choose a route which allows them to cash in TWICE. That's nice. It's not about the image of their movie franchises, it's about money. The proposal by Warner Bros. is a euphemistic more money-making strategy in the clothing of concerned game quality.

Nah, this is not a way to end the sad history of bad games based on popular movie licenses. The only way is the consumer who doesn't pay for a bad game, and also gamereviewers who don't fall for hype; I'm not blaming movie studios or game publishers, but game players who buy bad games and gamereviewers who explicitly recommended to buy the below-average Matrix simply because of exclusive movie footage (like GI did and NP).

[SoulBlazer]

I picked up Gladius for the GC a month ago -- it's a really fun game!

Anyway, to go back to what others have said, the main issue is'nt so much in control of the games themselves, it's another argument over how much control that each person should have in the making of a game, and trying to find a balance that can please all parties.

[NintendoMan]

Sorry if any game developers read this, but I LOVE IT! If the people can't make a good game they should be punished in a way, and if they can't make a great game then don't take the assignment.

This topic just once again brings up how much Enter the Matrix sold, and mostly just because of the name. If there was never a Matrix movie, then this game might have broke, what, 10,000 copies sold? LOL

[Nature Boy]

I think the principle idea is a good one but using the video game media as a barometer is a bad one. Why not use game sales as a barometer? Enter the Matrix might not be widely accepted as a "good game" - but $250M in worldwide sales can be accepted as a financial success. And didn't they mention in the article that they wanted to recover lost revenue anyway?

I dislike the idea so much that I hope WB gets shunned by the development community.l

[zmweasel]

Sorry if any game developers read this, but I LOVE IT! If the people can't make a good game they should be punished in a way, and if they can't make a great game then don't take the assignment.

Have you read any of the previous posts in this thread?

"The people" who make tie-in games are often working with little or no support from licensors, racing to meet absurd deadlines. These aren't prime conditions for making a great game. Should developers "be punished" for doing the best job they can under the circumstances?

Why do developers sign up for "the assignment" of tie-in games? Because, as has unfortunately been the case in the video game industry for a decade or more, tie-ins are much more likely to sell than original works. Just ask the folks at Toys For Bob, one of the most talented development studios in North America, which has been reduced to working on Disney tie-ins to pay the bills.


This topic just once again brings up how much Enter the Matrix sold, and mostly just because of the name. If there was never a Matrix movie, then this game might have broke, what, 10,000 copies sold? LOL

If "The Matrix" franchise didn't exist, the game wouldn't have existed, either, so it would've been zero copies sold.

-- Z.

[Ed Oscuro]

Warner Bros. was well aware that the game rights for the incredibly successful Matrix would boost the sales for the game, and Warner Bros. put a price tag on it. The lesser the estimated risk for the game publisher, the more attractive the movie, the more game publishers have to pay.
I'm not sure how true to reality this is, but bear with me while I explain. There are, as I see it, three "levels" of understanding in the populace about what causes movie licenses to fail as games: First there's folks like the developers and select game critics who understand that the game was rushed out the door by the publisher and underfunded. Then there's the folks who read game reviews or don't separate publisher from developer or whatever (sometimes I've been one) who look and say "ew, Shiny bad!" Next is where I think most everybody else lies, and perhaps the gut reaction of most folks (sometimes mine, as well) - "last time I bought a Matrix game it sucked; I'm not going to buy any others."

Perhaps, taking into account that most people (I'm guessing) fall into the last camp, Warner has traditionally felt that they're just getting paid by the license and that the developer does whatever they want with it (of course, as they self-righteously assure us, folks like to rub the Time Warner name in the dirt because it makes them happy)?