But, to reuse an example, the wachowski brothers were involved with, and endorsed, the matrix game.  So those are the kind of people who'd be making the decisions.  Which is why I'm saying that the straight forward solution that you propose isn't necessarily a solution.

I'm curious as to what lead you to believe WB, or any major studio for that matter, has any ability to recognize quality. These are the same people who greenlighted Pluto Nash and Ballistic: Ecks vs Sever. Ghost Ship, Fear Dot Com, Kangaroo Fucking Jack, and Catwoman! For god's sake, it's not even released yet, and I can tell you that whoever is working on that deserves no royalties!

Funny that when he tries to implement a system that emphasizes quality over sales quantity, so many people are attacking him.

Being game reviewers isn't WB's core competency.  You should always focus on your core competency.  This is what Jason Hall is attempting to do.  He is right to do it.

I think we're just on different wavelengths here. I like the idea of higher quality games being put out, but I cannot possibly imagine WB being objective about reducing royalties as an incentive. Furthermore, I don't see Jason Hall's presence as any sign of quality assurance, in light of his track record and based on my own personal opinions of the products he's worked on.

If he wasn't hired for his expertise to ensure that the brands remain undamaged -- which logically implies that he would be overseeing those games prior to release, and therefore should be taking part of the blame if those games come out poorly instead of punishing only the publishers -- then what was he hired for?

To play the blame game? To clarify, he's letting things proceed as they always have, he's just bringing the hammer down in the financial sense on poorly reviewed games, correct?

The bottom line is this.  Warner Bros. would like to become more relevant in the game industry across many levels.  They want to deal with the game industry – the various publishers and developers – in a competent way.  In a way that doesn’t make everyone feel like, “Man they’re slow.  Boy, They don’t understand anything - we’ve got to explain everything.” You know the drill.  So, they reach out deep into the game industry and they pull me out of it and they say, “here come sit on top of this and help us bring Warner Bros. up to speed on this crazy game environment that you crazy people are from.”  So, you know what my history is, so does everybody else.  So when I sit across the table from these game developers and publishers it is clear to them that there’s someone at the top that clearly understands everything down to why they need a very specific video card so they can overclock it, right? That helps Warner Bros. tremendously.

I know how game deals get done.  I know the struggles of the developer.  I know the challenges that the publishers face.  I know how the products should be marketed.  I know which demographics are going to pay attention to what.  That is important to a film studio that is trying to get more involved in the video game industry, outside of licensing.  Because we’re going to do much more than just license stuff to publishers and developers.  It’s important that they bring a guy like me in to be able to do it right.  You know film studios historically have not been successful.  You have the MGM Interactives of the world and all that other stuff.  That’s not going to happen now - not with me here.  Monolith made it through some of the toughest times of all time and I learned a lot from that experience.

The game industry should consider Warner Bros. as a fellow game company now.  Not the film studio that’s just trying to get into it.  Because you have as hardcore of a game company executive running the whole thing.

Well there’s two things.  One of my big focuses is on the quality of the games that are coming out.  As you know Monolith tended to produce very high quality game experiences.  That’s partly due to the fact that I’m very focused on the quality bar, and I know what a crap game is.  So one of the things that will differentiate games coming from under the Warner Bros. influence are that the eyeballs that are going to be looking at them to make sure that they are not merely trying to trade on the license but the game underneath itself is fun and worth playing. That would be me, and the people that I’m going to be bringing into the organization to make sure that’s the case.  Most film studios don’t have the capacity internally yet to make those kinds of calls.  I’m going to make sure that Warner Bros. does.  That will have a dramatic effect on the overall quality for a Warner Bros. licensed title.  Of course it’ll take time – none of this stuff is going to happen over night, but I would let me track record speak for itself with regards to the what the performance will be for the quality of these games.

But in terms of quality and sales, did Max Payne 2 help or the hurt the IP?

MP2 kicked a lot of ass and added depth to Max's character. Sounds like an improvement to the IP, to me! G!

Caryn: wrong
Me: right

Currently, for The Matrix Online Warner Bros is having it done out of house at Monolith.  It really is this Warner Bros. production.  Warner Bros. has taken this really active role in overseeing it along with the creators of The Matrix to make sure that will continue the franchise positive and evergreen way.  That has definitely been a different development process for a film studio historically, because Warner Bros. has had to invest in that – a lot of the times film studios will just license out the property and require the licensee to make all the investment.  So it gets a different level of attention.

So if The Matrix Online gets crap reviews, is it just the fault of the publisher who licensed it, and therefore is it okay to garnish their royalties accordingly (while WB, we assume, gets all the money they're supposed to get from the original agreement)?

Caryn: wrong
Me: right

Really?

You've just indirectly endorsed the Tomb Raider series, you realize.

I mean, what is the business that WB is in? Publishing games that reviewers like, or selling lots of games to consumers?

I highly doubt this new plan applies to The Matrix Online.  So, irrelevant point.

Did we play the same Demo?

On the other hand, you know most jackasses would abuse the system by copiously returning single player story-driven or otherwise not highly replayable games they actually enjoyed but have finished or are just done with in the first 30 days or so after purchase.

Caryn, tying this idea to an internal review board also has an inherent conflict of interest.

Though you make a good point about keeping track of returns.. I guess that would help a lot.

No, I don't think so.  The people who would do that would usually just download it instead.  Also, EB used to take down your name and contact information if you returned a game.  Keeping return information would allow them to track people who abuse the system.  

I don't see why someone who wanted to steal the game would waste the time and the (temporary) money in order to get something for free, when they can just find the torrent and have it (often before it hits shelves).  Shit, just charging a return fee would deter those kind of people.

On the other hand, you know most jackasses would abuse the system by copiously returning single player story-driven or otherwise not highly replayable games they actually enjoyed but have finished or are just done with in the first 30 days or so after purchase.

I would love to see Jason Hall walk into a meeting and say: "Gentlemen, the game is breaking all the sales records, but I'm still cutting back on your pay because several people, who haven't even paid for your game, say it sucks."

Clearly WB isn't escaping all responsibility.  

They are taking a hit by having their IP tarnished in either situation.  All they are saying is the publisher should have some financial incentive to do a good job.  Otherwise, the publisher buys a license to make a game based on "Big Movie X", makes a shitty game, releases it the same day as "Big Movie X" and sells a bunch of copies before the masses figure out the game is shit.  In either situation, WB suffers.  In the current situation, the publisher does not, though they should.

I think Caryn is biased.

Me: Troll

Sometimes.

As you know Monolith tended to produce very high quality game experiences.

It's not something you can trust to one person.  Just because one person finds something fun doesn't mean anything.  Also, it may not even work if you had a panel of five people.  You'd need specific types of people for specific genres, perhaps with a cross section of people who don't normally like that kind of game thrown in for good measure.  It just seems like the kind of thing that would be extremely difficult to set up accurately.