Good one Warner Brothers...

As I'm sure we have or will hear about today, WB is going to penalize their dev studios who put out games that Gamerank poorly. Frankly, I think this is a great idea. I just wish they'd go back and retroactively punish the Enter the Matrix makers. Like, hunt them for sport or somesuch thing.

Edit: though, I can sympathize with developers that have to put up with a parent company pushing their games out the door before QA is done (like Ion Storm working for Eidos) so I can see the need for some kind of checks and balances in the system.

What were these games, and penalize them how?

Good. Now maybe it won't be "Hey let's make a shitty game based upon Franchise X. It'll make money with no work involved on our part!"

Where was this kinda system when Atari made E.T.?

has warner bros ever made a good game?

i believe i remember in a press release, they said the punishment would be castration.

I don't like it. Studios are already penalized by the free market system if a game does not sell well, to penalized them based on reviews is arbitrary.

[quote name='guessed']I don't like it. Studios are already penalized by the free market system if a game does not sell well, to penalized them based on reviews is arbitrary.[/quote]

No, it's the publisher who gets stuck if a game sells bad. The studio already got paid before the game hit shelves.

This is a stupid Idea because it is the publishers who pressure the devs in the first place to rush out pieces of shit.

This is just a ploy to cast all the blame on the devs and make publishers look like saints.

[quote name='Scrubking']This is a stupid Idea because it is the publishers who pressure the devs in the first place to rush out pieces of shit.

This is just a ploy to cast all the blame on the devs and make publishers look like saints. [/quote]

and we have a winner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well then if rushing games is a big sticking point developers need to give publishers concrete time-frames for when they can get a game out. If they miss the date, their pay for the game should be instantly halved. Unless you're in a very select group of development houses, you shouldn't be allowed to do business if you think "when it's done" is an ok release date.

Now, sometimes the game's badness is undoubtedly on the hands of publishers pushing them out too quick, but I'd say, in the majority of cases, poorly reviewed games are flawed in such ways that it's clearly the fault of the developers. In such cases, wolf related apart-tearings are in order.

Now, sometimes the game's badness is undoubtedly on the hands of publishers pushing them out too quick

How about MOST of the time.

Most games suck or don't reach full potential because publishers want the latest and greatest within ridiculous time frames.

Now add to that the fact that publishers don't care about innovation or quality and want to dumb down games because they will sell better.

Take DX:IW and TDS two legendary series that were butchered because sales weren't high enough on their predecessors. Now we have 2 games that were kiddie sized for the masses in hopes of making an extra buck. Eidos is completely to blame for this.

Now what do you prefer a game that takes forever but is damn worth it or a dumbed down piece of garbage game pumped out yearly?

Publishers are evil and care more about money than quality games, and for one of them to act hollier than thou and place all the blame on their devs is beyond laughable.

I am sure Eidos is going to punish Ion Storm for DX:IW piss poor showing - after all only the devs are to blame right?

I'm stupid, but what is DX:IW and TDS?

the new Deus Ex game and Thief if I believe.

[quote name='Grave_Addiction']I'm stupid, but what is DX:IW and TDS?[/quote]

I think it's Deus Ex: Invisible War and Theif: Dark Shadows

[quote name='Scrubking']Now, sometimes the game's badness is undoubtedly on the hands of publishers pushing them out too quick

How about MOST of the time.

Most games suck or don't reach full potential because publishers want the latest and greatest within ridiculous time frames.

Now add to that the fact that publishers don't care about innovation or quality and want to dumb down games because they will sell better.

Take DX:IW and TDS two legendary series that were butchered because sales weren't high enough on their predecessors. Now we have 2 games that were kiddie sized for the masses in hopes of making an extra buck. Eidos is completely to blame for this.

Now what do you prefer a game that takes forever but is damn worth it or a dumbed down piece of garbage game pumped out yearly?

Publishers are evil and care more about money than quality games, and for one of them to act hollier than thou and place all the blame on their devs is beyond laughable.

I am sure Eidos is going to punish Ion Storm for DX:IW piss poor showing - after all only the devs are to blame right?[/quote]

"I can sympathize with developers that have to put up with a parent company pushing their games out the door before QA is done (like Ion Storm working for Eidos) so I can see the need for some kind of checks and balances in the system."

But yeah, you made your point. Your single example you can cite is proof enough that most terrible games are the fault of the publishers and the poor developers are never responsible for bad games.

ok, one game that was mentiond was Enter the Matrix...now thats a game that should have gotten fired and every copy of a dave perry game destroyed (bye earthworm jim). They had the time, money, marketing, and even the movie producers behind them...and they still made a hugh ing terd. HOW? i mean really, they f'd that one up more than anyone could imagine. now look at the Matrix online...Smaller budget, less people working on it, and a TON of new/interesting ideas...and it seems to be a good game. Even in the pre-release shots ETM was underwhelming.

Overall though, this is the kind of thing that needs to be dealt with on a game to game basis. Ive never liked blanket punishment.

[quote name='Scrubking']Your single example you can cite is proof enough that most terrible games are the fault of the publishers[]

It is more than enough to compete with your many missing examples of how devs are more at fault than publishers.

and the poor developers are never responsible for bad games.

I never said that - you decided to make it up. [/quote]

I don't bear the burden of proof, though, since logic is on my side. The developers are the ones that craft the game, therefore, they're most likely to be at fault if there are flaws in the game. Can you prove your point that "most" games that are bad because of the publishers? You DID say that, if you recall: "How about MOST of the time. Most games suck or don't reach full potential because publishers want the latest and greatest within ridiculous time frames."

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

I don't bear the burden of proof, though

What is this? The Jmcc court of law? Don't make me laugh!

since logic is on my side.

According to who? You? And let me guess you are not biased right?

The developers are the ones that craft the game, therefore, they're most likely to be at fault if there are flaws in the game.

That is true only if you completely ignore the pressure and influence publishers have on devs. Poor design and other mistakes usually have to be ignored because the devs wouldn't meet the deadline otherwise. Just look at pc games - they have to rush games out and then only afterward can they make patches to fix what they didn't have time to earlier.


Can you prove your point that "most" games that are bad because of the publishers?

Absolutely!

Before a game ever sees the light of day on a shelf a publisher is fully aware of what they are putting out there. So if they see a crappy game and still publish it who is more at fault?

Not to mention I already stated how publishers pressure devs to dumb down games or edit them for maximum sales, and that, more often than not, leads to not so great games and a lack of innovation and style. In fact it leads to clones of popular games in hopes of pleasing the publishers with the possiblitiy of cashing in.

But Hall would only comment that "sales don't equal quality."

Click to expand...

Granted, this is the video games division of Warner Bros, but that has to be the funniest damn thing I've ever heard coming from a Hollywood movie studio.

-Matt

[quote name='Scrubking']I don't bear the burden of proof, though

What is this? The Jmcc court of law? Don't make me laugh![/quote]

YOU started a debate. You made a conflicting statement. If you want anyone to take it seriously, you've got to back it up with some evidence.

[quote name='Scrubbking']since logic is on my side.

According to who? You? And let me guess you are not biased right?[/quote]

You're disputing my point that developers are the ones who most directly effect a game? I don't see that bias comes into it at all. You do understand the concept that the developers are the ones directly working on the game, right? So doesn't it follow that they're most responsible for the content of the game?

[quote name='Scrubbking']The developers are the ones that craft the game, therefore, they're most likely to be at fault if there are flaws in the game.

That is true only if you completely ignore the pressure and influence publishers have on devs. Poor design and other mistakes usually have to be ignored because the devs wouldn't meet the deadline otherwise. Just look at pc games - they have to rush games out and then only afterward can they make patches to fix what they didn't have time to earlier.[/quote]

Do you think that publishers just spring a release date on developers in the middle of development cycle? There's a time table set when a developer signs on to produce a game. Publishers don't just randomly storm into the developer's offices and force them to give them a gold copy to send to shelves.

[quote name='Scrubbking']Can you prove your point that "most" games that are bad because of the publishers?

Absolutely!

Before a game ever sees the light of day on a shelf a publisher is fully aware of what they are putting out there. So if they see a crappy game and still publish it who is more at fault?

Not to mention I already stated how publishers pressure devs to dumb down games or edit them for maximum sales, and that, more often than not, leads to not so great games and a lack of innovation and style. In fact it leads to clones of popular games in hopes of pleasing the publishers with the possiblitiy of cashing in.[/quote]

That's not proof. Do you have a list of developers who claim that their games were rushed out by the publishers and if so, how long had the game been in development for that wasn't long enough to get it out in good form?

Basically what the article shows WB saying is:

"You make games based on our properties that rate well, you get royalties.
You make bad games based on our properties that hurt the franchise, you get zilch."

It'll be up to the developers to say " if you want this game to be good shut up and let us work on it, because we want our freaking money."

[quote name='Mattfish']

But Hall would only comment that "sales don't equal quality."

Click to expand...

Granted, this is the video games division of Warner Bros, but that has to be the funniest damn thing I've ever heard coming from a Hollywood movie studio.

-Matt[/quote]

He used to work at Monolith so he knows how to make a quality game

[quote name='CaseyRyback'][quote name='Mattfish']

But Hall would only comment that "sales don't equal quality."

Click to expand...

Granted, this is the video games division of Warner Bros, but that has to be the funniest damn thing I've ever heard coming from a Hollywood movie studio.

-Matt[/quote]

He used to work at Monolith so he knows how to make a quality game[/quote]

Well, that's not really in dispute. I just find it extremely ironic that a major Hollywood studio like WB is blaring on about quality over marketability.

-Matt

If you want anyone to take it seriously, you've got to back it up with some evidence.

So I have to back it up, but just because you started the thread you don't have to provide any evidence for you theory? And your rant about your logic being enough is BULL. Don't demand evidence when you are not going to provide any either.

So doesn't it follow that they're most responsible for the content of the game?

Of course they are responsible, but you want to place ALL the blame on them when you are clearly ignoring the publishers that have a lot more influence than you care to acknoledge.

Do you think that publishers just spring a release date on developers in the middle of development cycle? There's a time table set when a developer signs on to produce a game. Publishers don't just randomly storm into the developer's offices and force them to give them a gold copy to send to shelves.

If everything was so clean cut as you try to portray it there wouldn't be so many damn delays. And guess what? Sometimes a game needs a delay and the publisher says NO - now or never.

Do you have a list of developers who claim that their games were rushed out by the publishers and if so, how long had the game been in development for that wasn't long enough to get it out in good form?

Even though I am not inclined to produce evidence since you are not producing any I will reiterate that Ion Storm is a prime example of my argument. The devs have admitted to passing over things because of time constraints that, guess who, placed upon them. I also can't tell you how many dev interviews I read where the devs say that they just didn't have enough time to get things right or finish something.

I've produced evidence that it DOES happen, and you haven't produced squat.

And I am not going to continue a debate with someone who demands proof of people's arguments without providing any of his own.

[quote name='Scrubking']I also can't tell you how many dev interviews I read where the devs say that they just didn't have enough time to get things right or finish something.[/quote]

I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but would you honestly expect them to say anything different? Would you expect a dev to say "Well, we had plenty of time, but we just aren't a talented enough group to put out high quality games"? Of course they are going to point the finger. That's just human nature.

-Matt

[quote name='Scrubking'] If you want anyone to take it seriously, you've got to back it up with some evidence.

So I have to back it up, but just because you started the thread you don't have to provide any evidence for you theory? And your rant about your logic being enough is BULL. Don't demand evidence when you are not going to provide any either.

So doesn't it follow that they're most responsible for the content of the game?

Of course they are responsible, but you want to place ALL the blame on them when you are clearly ignoring the publishers that have a lot more influence than you care to acknoledge.

Do you think that publishers just spring a release date on developers in the middle of development cycle? There's a time table set when a developer signs on to produce a game. Publishers don't just randomly storm into the developer's offices and force them to give them a gold copy to send to shelves.

If everything was so clean cut as you try to portray it there wouldn't be so many damn delays. And guess what? Sometimes a game needs a delay and the publisher says NO - now or never.

Do you have a list of developers who claim that their games were rushed out by the publishers and if so, how long had the game been in development for that wasn't long enough to get it out in good form?

Even though I am not inclined to produce evidence since you are not producing any I will reiterate that Ion Storm is a prime example of my argument. The devs have admitted to passing over things because of time constraints that, guess who, placed upon them. I also can't tell you how many dev interviews I read where the devs say that they just didn't have enough time to get things right or finish something.

I've produced evidence that it DOES happen, and you haven't produced squat.

And I am not going to continue a debate with someone who demands proof of people's arguments without providing any of his own. [/quote]

I'm incredibly surprised that you have nothing to back up your insane claim that publishers are more directly responsible for the quality of a game than developers. Really. Look at me. I'm blown away here.

Personally, I don't really like this idea. Seems like it could somehow screw with the entire existing review process.

And, I think Warner Bros. should develop their own aggregate system and not rely on gamerankings.com or other existing sites.

They should really use sales as the bottom line for a system like this, not critic reviews. It's a business, they care 10x more about the money side than they do about getting good reviews.

Of course, I guess development houses are also free to simply not license Warner Bros. properties if they don't like thier system.

This topic has officially been DERAILED.

BUt aside from that i really wouldnt know what to think of this idea.....It sounds like a good idea on paper....But the potential publishers over developer concept is a good point. Im not taking sides. Id have to see how this would work in real life.

I'm incredibly surprised that you have nothing to back up your insane claim that publishers are more directly responsible for the quality of a game than developers.

I did back it up

And her is some more: Electronic Gaming #180

"Unfortunately, we, well, ran out of time with timeSplitters 2" - Producer Steve Ellis from Free Radical

I wonder why he ran out of time? Hmmm.

"I also wanted to have automated sentry guns that spies could hack and take over. Maybe in the sequal..." - Creative Director Gunther Galipot - Splinter Cell PT

He wanted to add something, but couldn't... I wonder why? And with every new interview I am sure we are bound to here more stories about how devs couldn't get the game to their liking because of time restraints and other pressures put on the by the publishers.

This Incredibly MAJOR PWNAGE was brought to you by Scrubking. Have a nice day.

I bet most developers could look at any game they have ever worked on and point out a handful of things they think would have made the game better if they had unlimited time. There is always a trade off between adding features and content to a game and knowing when to call it so it can get out the door.

I think this is pretty good. In the article, he mentions "production triage," not fixing things because you know the game will sell. Just look at all the bugs in enter the matrix to see this in action. I realize in that particular example, the arguement could be made that the game was rushed to release the same day as the movie, but it was in development forever, and some of the collision issues and clipping aren't the kind of thing that you don't notice until fine tuning.