Publishers Basing Royalties On Metacritic Scores

Stephen Totilo of MTV Multiplayer continues his week-long look at video game review practices by exploring the practice of game publishers withholding certain bonuses and/or royalties if the game doesn't achieve a certain Metacritic average. Basically a publisher agrees to finance the development of a game as long as the developer in these sort of situation agrees to Metacritic score limit stipulations that could theoretically see a low-scoring game that sells millions (any children's licensed title really) hardly earning the devs a dime.

Totilo talks to some pretty big names about the practice, including GameSpot's former employee Jeff Gerstmann, who explains why the practice is so disturbing.

It's really a ridiculous practice that almost always works in the publisher's favor. Luckily it isn't as widespread as it once was, but it does give you interesting insight into why some developers will defend their games as if their lives depended on it. Sometimes they might.

Low Metacritic Scores Cause Game Publishers To Withhold Developer Royalties [MTV Multiplayer]

More On "Faking Quality" And Metacritic

Whenever we hear about the travails of a video game company, snark abounds, and ultimately, the chorus cries, "Why don't you just make some games that don't suck?"

Easy to say from the outside looking in, but independent game developer Matthew of the Magical Wasteland blog shared his insider experience with an unidentified major publisher to explain that it's not always so simple, even when executives "talk the talk" about quality control.

Matthew cited the institution of bonuses for developers based on Metacritic scores, similar to the practice of hinging developer royalties on good scores that MTV Multiplayer's Stephen Totilo recently investigated.

Said Matthew:

The result, said Matthew, was that development became rushed and disjointed, all in the pursuit of the mighty Metacritic review score.

Matthew's entire story is well worth a read, even with the (logical) absence of his career specifics. I find it ironic that the games press, many of whom are indirectly responsible for those scores, so rarely gets opportunities like these to look inside the developers' experience.

You Can’t Fake Quality, But That Never Stops Them from Trying [Magical Wasteland]

Well we all know what happened to Jeff when he tried to be honest.

So....reviewers are soft on some developers....shocking new twist in the gaming industry!

Don't see why fans of this industry are so focused on reviews. Do you need to read a load of reviews before you buy an album or watch a film?

yeah i dont check reviews that much,i dont really care about them

Well as some stated on other threads, games cost more, so you want more assurance that your money will be better spent.

Also, in the past, game reviewers have been actual gamers, so they tended to review more in line most gamer's tastes, unlike movie critics, so they got a reputation for credibility. 

I recall in the mid-late 90's that Fox Interactive began this process by giving bonuses to teams that garnered the best reviews. The initial practice was in earnest. They simply wanted to give the developers and incentive to work harder but it blossomed into something shadier.

Publishers wanted highs cores to validate their ad funding in media and developers wanted high scores to garner bonuses. Both began pressuring media outlets to publish higher scores.

Ever notice how a mid quality game is a 75% now instead of a 50% like the term suggest (50% being middle ground)? Now you know why.

 Unlike movie critics? Are you trying to say they don't watch movies or something? 

There is definatly a need for reviews, and there is money to be had from it.

Come on, games are expensive and alot of people need to know what a game is like before investing their hard earned cash into it.

The old Four Point Scale.