Low scoring game reviews cost game makers money, claims MTV Multiplayer. No surprise, it's something we've been yammering about for several years now. The thinking, cobbled together informally from anonymous sources and despite MTV's allegation that the practice is "common but not widespread," virtually impossible to realistically quantify, is that game publishers pay development studios "incentives" based on how well a game performs with a score aggregator like Metacritic. See your game rise above a certain integer-dot-integer and the money flows -- fall a decimal point short and you can kiss that holiday bonus goodbye.
Though MTV doesn't mention it, the practice also allegedly extends occasionally to public relations representatives. After all, PR -- not game makers -- have to deal directly with the number-givers. Some call that benign "competitive persuasiveness." I call it "unethical," to the extent it's ever occurred, or continues to.
But this is well-covered terrain, and the only reason I mention it here is the less mentioned, more insidious implication: Paying bonuses for aggregator scores is inherently elitist. It cuts consumers entirely out of the picture. It unduly elevates game critics' opinions over yours.
So while I'm already riled up about the possibility that dubiously valid aggregator "scores" could be driving payola to hard-up developers based on shady publisher incentives, I have an even bigger problem with what it implies game makers think -- or don't -- of the very people who ultimately buy their products.
Re-Play
Fearless or feckless? Have your say below or pelt me with emails here.
