sonycowboy
Member
http://biz.gamedaily.com/features.asp?article_id=7839§ion=feature&email=
Royalties, publishers and buyers...oh my!
More and more publishers and retail buyers' are turning to review score sites like Metacritic and Game Rankings to make critical decisions. Does this put too much power in critics hands?
Websites that compile game review scores have become more influential with publishers and retail buyers over the past few years. The two most popular sites right now are GameRankings.com, founded by Scott Bedard, and Metacritic.com, which was founded in 1999 but didn't launch its website until 2001.
Royal Hall
The sites' popularity is understandable when you consider that more and more developers' royalties these days are based on Metacritic or GameRankings scores. Publishers associate the numbers directly with sales, and licensees often have to pay more if they don't hit a certain number. In fact, back in May, Jason Hall, senior VP of Warner Brothers Interactive Entertainment, told The Hollywood Reporter that Warner Bros. would begin to charge publishers that license its brands a fee that varies according to what reviewers think of their games. Warner Bros. feels that the game must achieve aggregate review scores of 70% or better or it will be subject to 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."
However, to publisher Atari, who put out Enter the Matrix using Warner Bros' license, it certainly is an issue. "We sold four million copies. That's $250 million worldwide," commented Bruno Bonnell, Atari 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?" He then angrily added, "I will never, ever sign this sort of agreement, which effectively insults our business."
Damage control
But should review scores have this much influence on publishers?
Bedard believes that "it should be a small factor" because using aggregate scores does help limit damage to a brand or franchise. Enter the Matrix sold well, but the brand was hurt because it wasn't a very solid title; so if another Matrix title followed it, chances of success would be much lower.
Bedard pointed out that this kind of thing has been going on for a while; it's just that Warner Bros. was one of the first to go public about it. "A lot of companies have been doing that for years."
He also mentioned that his site has been used as a tool not just to address royalties, but also other issues such as manufacturing. "I've actually had meetings with a lot of these companies over the years. It was about three years ago that I had a meeting with the president of Activision and he was showing me all kinds of stuff and stock reports...and that the GameRankings scores were being used to determine a lot of different factors, including re-manufacturing numbers so that they didn't overstock the game in their warehouses."
"That's when I started realizing that the data was starting to be used for more than just [gamers]. And then I noticed a bunch of companies started using my scores to pay their product managers their bonuses, and then even some developers would get bonuses based on what the GameRankings average score was."
Dishing out to developers
Marc Doyle, Games Editor at Metacritic, doesn't see any harm in rewarding developers for making good games. "Developers should be rewarded, shouldn't they? I mean, this is still a capitalist system here. If it's selling, somebody must be liking it."
Doyle also thinks the situation is "overstated." "I don't think that they're counting on [our scores] so much that they're ignoring the economic realities of their business."
He added, "I guess it's good for the gamer that publishers are interested in quality."
Empowering reviewers?
However, could a system that places so much on review scores be giving reviewers too much power or control over the industry?
Bedard doesn't see it as a problem because of the number of reviews out there and the careful steps his site will take to include more reputable publications. "When you look at it over a hundred sites or a hundred outlets, one score isn't really going to make the difference. It doesn't push it that much."
Bedard made it clear that certain sites will be listed, but won't be factored into the average if they only review a small number of games each month, and therefore might review one game but not that game's main competitor. Also he says, "Some of them are just wacked; you can just tell they have a vendetta against EA or something like that," and those scores obviously get discarded.
The way Doyle sees it is that if it's going to be on Metacritic, it might as well count, and moreover, that a publication like GameInformer, which he said is sort of analogous to the Siskel & Ebert of gaming, should count more than "somebody's website who started playing games two years ago." "[Reviewers] who can really assess games with a little bit more authority should be given more weight."
Rearranging retail
As for the effect these sites have on retail buyers, Bedard admits that "it was affecting it quite a bit because I know at IEMAI meet with a lot of retailers thereand they rely on GameRankings as one of their sources. And now with the advent of GameSpot Trax, we've given them better metrics to judge what people are going to buy."
Doyle agrees that the scores are definitely affecting retail buyers. They use them "to decide what games they are going to order, to put on the shelves, and how much space they're going to give to various things."
However, Bedard insists, "it's becoming a little less of a factor for the retail outlets, because we've given them better tools to use."
In the end, though, Doyle thinks, "the overall importance of a compilation site like us [with regard to publishers and retail buyers] is probably overstated because I think Scott [Bedard]'s goal and my goal is to educate the public...the gamers. Let's not waste 50 bucks on something that's marketed really well but doesn't play well.
