You've got to be kidding me. If Warner Bros thinks they can actually get away with it,they're crazy. It's gonna hurt them more than it helps them. Do they do this to other licencees?

[Zeus]

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '><b>Link:</b> <a href="http://www.gamespot.com/gamecube/action ... l">here</a>

You've got to be kidding me. If Warner Bros thinks they can actually get away with it,they're crazy. It's gonna hurt them more than it helps them. Do they do this to other licencees?</div>

[Tessian]

<div style='font: 11pt Dominion; text-align: left; '>'eh, while basing their decision off of reviewers isn't the best, what's wrong with charging a company for making a bad game from your license?</div>

[Eric]

<div style='font: 11pt ; text-align: left; '>I don't see the problem, or what PA is bitching about. They want their licenses to be used well, not spit out some crap game that took 3 months to make. Granted if a game doesn't recieve uber scores but sells well they shouldn't be penalized but I still understand.</div>

[Kupek]

<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>They're being sarcastic.</div>

[Gentz]

<div style='font: 11pt arial; text-align: left; '>While I do like the fact that video games are basically the only market in which a system like this would be possible, it seems to me that actual sales would make a better bottom line than review ratings.</div>

[EsquE]

<div style='font: 10pt Baskerville; text-align: left; '>I don't really have a problem with this except for using game reviews...a minority opinion that is easily corruptible...</div>

[EsquE]

<div style='font: 10pt Baskerville; text-align: left; '>You did read the last panel right?</div>

[SineSwiper]

<div style='font: 10pt "EngraversGothic BT", "Copperplate Gothic Light", "Century Gothic"; text-align: left; '>Really? I thought they were being nonsensical. This is Chewbacca...</div>

[SineSwiper]

<div style='font: 10pt "EngraversGothic BT", "Copperplate Gothic Light", "Century Gothic"; text-align: left; '>The mags are crap now anyway. I've got ads that POSE AS A COVER to the magazine (thanks GamePro!). I've got big thick sticker thingies that force me to turn to that page, just so I can rip the fucking thing out. This is next to the smaller postcards, begging me to pay a year for an essensially free mag (because I sign up for some used game membership at EB/Babbages/whatever). Of course, these ads aren't enough, so I have the regular ads in the mags telling me to buy their game, right next to the review for that game that tells me it blows.

Or the mags encased in a plastic bag, with a CD. That CD ends up being an AOL disc. Wow...AOL...is...The Internet! I thought I was going to get a demo disc, but hey, this AOL CD sure is better than that playable crap!</div>

[the Gray]

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>heh, nothing to argue about here. I stopped getting any game mag a long time ago.</div>

[Julius Seeker]

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>If that's how they want to do business, fine with me, I never buy their games anyways. However, I feel that if they want to make a good game, they should give the rights to a good development house.</div>

[Eric]

<div style='font: 11pt ; text-align: left; '>I dunno, EGM has had a couple of publishers pull advertising from their magazine for crappy reviews.</div>

[Zeus]

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>Exactly. It's like punishing filmmakers for poor reviews of their films</div>

[Zeus]

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>That's the only one left that I respect enough to read</div>

[Zeus]

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>It's the way they're punishing them. In the end, it's all about the sales, or it should be for the licencors. If 10 reviewers hate it but 4 million people buy it, what are they to complain about?</div>

[Julius Seeker]

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>I wouldn't say that since judging a game is much more objective</div>

[Zeus]

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>No it's not, in any way</div>

[SineSwiper]

<div style='font: 10pt "EngraversGothic BT", "Copperplate Gothic Light", "Century Gothic"; text-align: left; '>Ahem! Superman 64!</div>

[Zeus]

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>Did it sell well?</div>

[SineSwiper]

<div style='font: 10pt "EngraversGothic BT", "Copperplate Gothic Light", "Century Gothic"; text-align: left; '>Yes, very well. It was in the Top Ten for several weeks. That's why I pointed to it as an example. Another is Enter the Matrix. and some of the crappier Mortal Kombat sequels.</div>

[Zeus]

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>My earlier point is that the companies shouldn't punish the developers if the game sucks but sells really well. As you can tell, licenced games continue to do so. Whether we all agree or not, at the end of the day, sales are the best indication of quality ON A MASS LEVEL</div>

[SineSwiper]

<div style='font: 10pt "EngraversGothic BT", "Copperplate Gothic Light", "Century Gothic"; text-align: left; '>Considering that most sucks-but-sells games are because of the license ties to it, yes we should punish developers, because they had no part in the getting those sales. In this case, it was the developers' fault for not making them even MORE money.</div>

[Zeus]

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>Now that's just crazy talk. You can't very well say "if the game was better, we would have made $X more". You can't even insure it would make more</div>