We saw an article posted on Blue's News yesterday regarding a new sort of royalty calculation for games that use Warner Brothers licenses - you can read comments from the CEO of Atari and others responding to the concept. Essentially, and the basic idea is not offensive to me, developers start to lose money if their games review less than an average of 70%. People might understandably be worried about attempts to "game" that system, or that it might introduce a sort of mercenary review structure where cash money is dispensed in exchange for higher scores. The thing is, top tier review sites are almost allergic to scores below seven - except in cases where they rate from one to five, of course - so I don't know how much money really needs to change hands to get the results they crave. What's more, I don't know why the addition of "money" is fundamentally worse than the current staples of the reviewing industry, "sloth" and "ineptitude."