Topic: Talk about performace penalities...

[Toasty0]

Boy oh boy, are game makers in trouble now...

 read about it here  

[Khalee]

Post deleted by Khalee

[Iceman]

It's about dammed time.  Maybe now we'll see more 'Great' games and less 'decent' games.  

[Toasty0]

Quote:
to much to read summerise in laymans terms please.  

Basicly it says if a person is too lazy to read they are bound to fail.    

[ActiveX]

Game quality does suck ass, but that isn't the way to deal with it...

Last thing we need is for critics to actually have some of the power they think they have...

[Harlax]

Sure, but let it go both ways.  Make the studio pay compensation when they sign on a game maker and the movie turns out to be a dog.  Anyone seen that are here?  Nem....  (alert Starfleet Marines wrestle Harlax to the ground)

Not likely huh?

[Sirgod]

 

Quote:
 Hall's strategy now is to turn to game review Web sites -- such as GameRankings.com, Metacritic.com, and GameStats.com -- that aggregate scores given to games by critics at game sites and magazines. Games based on Warner Bros. licenses must achieve at least a 70% rating, or incur an increase in royalty rates.

 

This is an interesting Idea. Do those sites rank the Games themselves, or is there a Click thingie for the Consumers to rate the game. If It puts the ratings in our control, with some kind of safety Device to stop multible clicks It might work. Otherwise, It would be simple for A company to Bribe the site owners. And How many games actually score less then 70% when they come out... I know Rhetorical Question.



Stephen
 

[Iceman]

It really depends what sites you're talking about. Major sites like IGN and such don't really hand out subpar ratings too often.  However smaller independent sites tend to hand out much more bell curvish ratings.

Is the idea perfect? No.
Is it a good start? Yes.

[Toasty0]

Boy oh boy, are game makers in trouble now...

 read about it here  

[Khalee]

Post deleted by Khalee

[Iceman]

It's about dammed time.  Maybe now we'll see more 'Great' games and less 'decent' games.  

[Toasty0]

Quote:
to much to read summerise in laymans terms please.  

Basicly it says if a person is too lazy to read they are bound to fail.    

[ActiveX]

Game quality does suck ass, but that isn't the way to deal with it...

Last thing we need is for critics to actually have some of the power they think they have...

[Harlax]

Sure, but let it go both ways.  Make the studio pay compensation when they sign on a game maker and the movie turns out to be a dog.  Anyone seen that are here?  Nem....  (alert Starfleet Marines wrestle Harlax to the ground)

Not likely huh?

[Sirgod]

 

Quote:
 Hall's strategy now is to turn to game review Web sites -- such as GameRankings.com, Metacritic.com, and GameStats.com -- that aggregate scores given to games by critics at game sites and magazines. Games based on Warner Bros. licenses must achieve at least a 70% rating, or incur an increase in royalty rates.

 

This is an interesting Idea. Do those sites rank the Games themselves, or is there a Click thingie for the Consumers to rate the game. If It puts the ratings in our control, with some kind of safety Device to stop multible clicks It might work. Otherwise, It would be simple for A company to Bribe the site owners. And How many games actually score less then 70% when they come out... I know Rhetorical Question.



Stephen
 

[Iceman]

It really depends what sites you're talking about. Major sites like IGN and such don't really hand out subpar ratings too often.  However smaller independent sites tend to hand out much more bell curvish ratings.

Is the idea perfect? No.
Is it a good start? Yes.

[Toasty0]

Boy oh boy, are game makers in trouble now...

 read about it here  

[Khalee]

Post deleted by Khalee

[Iceman]

It's about dammed time.  Maybe now we'll see more 'Great' games and less 'decent' games.  

[Toasty0]

Quote:
to much to read summerise in laymans terms please.  

Basicly it says if a person is too lazy to read they are bound to fail.