The Most and Least Consistent Videogame Publishers

The scope of this report is limited to the following platforms; PC, PS3, Xbox360, PSP, Wii, and the DS. We included games from our data catalog from 2000 to 2008 for records where a Metacritic score was available.  This was a straightforward method to include only game titles where at least four or more individual reviews were applied.

Including all games titles, regardless of the number of reviews, is problematic. For example, there are titles where only one review was posted.  One or two reviews for a game did not meet what we considered to be an acceptable ”consensus”, and were therefore omitted.

To mitigate concerns regarding the weighting influence of Metacritic scores, all weights were eliminated and new scores were applied by averaging all reviews that attributed to the related game title.  This process encompassed 274 Media Outlets, 389 Publishers, 4,259 games, and 87,329 individual reviews*.   The average number of contributing outlets per game title was 20.5.

The non-weighted average scores were applied to a standard grading scale with an associated grade value:

Game Grading Scale

Game Grading Scale

Grade Scores were then totaled for each publisher.  Those with the highest values are assumed to be the most consistent Publishers, while those with the lowest total, the least consistent.  Using this method, publishers who may have created stellar titles, would also be penalized for each low scoring game and given no credit for average games.

For reference, we did consider two other methods that were dismissed:

• Comparing the highest percentage of positive scores by publisher yielded publishers releasing only a few titles and had almost no consideration for larger publishers.

• Applying the grade scale to Metacritics own favorability index yielded erratic results as explained previously in our 2008 scoring summary. We lost any correlation between top performers and their related average scores. Specifically we noted too many high ranking publishers with low average scores.

In addition, there are several variations of publisher names depending on factors such as territory, partnerships, etc.  These were all normalized and rolled up into the master publisher.  For example, Sega, regardless of territory would be represented simply as Sega.  Electronic Arts, EA Sports, Electronic Arts / Warner Bros were represented as Electronic Arts.  The only exception here is in regard to T2, 2K, and Rockstar which we treated as individual publishers rather than rolling all properties under one umbrella.

In regard to the normalization of scores, i.e. conversion of different scoring scales to a 100 scale, we rely on the native Metacritic conversion.  This is a potential concern regardless of the datasource and is in no way unique to Metacritic.  We make the assumption that this conversion is fair regardless of game or publisher.  In other words, any possible errors or interpretation of conversion benefits or penalizes each publisher equitably.

Finally, it is imperative to keep these results in perspective as they do not reflect trends towards an increase or decrease in quality trends.  For example, a publisher on the “Most Consistent List” may in fact be trending towards a decline in quality whereas a publisher on the “Least Consistent List” may trend towards an increase in quality.    It is also entirely plausible that the publisher noted, may be a standout leader in a particular genre or platform but performing poorly in another.  These variations and possible trends are not presented as it was not inclusive of the requested scope.

Most Consistent Publishers

Most Consistent Publishers

_least_consistent_all

Least Consistent Publishers

*Our first draft of the report applied the native Metacritic scores.  We took the extra steps to eliminate the weights in the final report as to address any concern over the weighting impact.   In the end, the weighting influence was negligable and the results, almost verbatim.   Typically, weighting deviations are most noticable as you examine narrow segments of data, or plot data over time.  For example, a historical summary for a specific platform by year or quarter may experience such issues.

Bookmark and Share
Wednesday, March 4th, 2009 Historical

13 Comments to The Most and Least Consistent Videogame Publishers

  • Matthew says:

    Very interesting data. Your methodology seems decent, and I’m not going to fight the Metacritic, or debate its role in our industry. I do have to wonder how you generated the ranks from those scores though. I would much rather be Blizzard (4 As and 3Bs) than either Rockstar or TellTale.

  • admin says:

    The ranks are genereated by the total Grade Score. If you total the grade values assigned for game, for each publisher, you get the GradeScore for each which determines rank position. We tried two other methods as mentioned in the report, but neither panned out. Certainly, we are always looking for ways to best represent the data. If you have suggestions, feel free to drop me a note or call. My contact info is in the “about us” section.

  • Lorenzo Wang says:

    Reposting here because the methodology is so wrong:

    This study makes no sense, what is his method?

    The correct way to get the “most consistent” publisher is:

    1. Take average score of all metacritic scores for all titles released.

    2. Find the publisher with the highest average of value for standard deviations from the average score. SDs would be calculated as absolute numbers, so -1 SD would be 1 SD.

    3. And of course adjust this for number of titles released as needed.

    Crunching the data for every single individual score would work too, and would get around the metacritic weighting bias, but it’s really unnecessary, as you are comparing titles from the same publisher, not reviews on the same title.

  • admin says:

    Lorzeno,

    First, thank you for posting. You are always welcome here, and others are certainly entitled to your perspective. If I understand you correctly, what I’d expect to see from the results are publishers with a fewer numbers of titles (that were consistently poor/consistently positive) with limited representation of larger publishers. If I’m missing something here, please feel free to post another comment, or contact me directly at someguy-at-gamequarry.com. Whichever you feel is most appropriate. Hope to hear from you.

  • Lorenzo Wang says:

    Sorry if I came off harsh. What I mean to say is that the title of the article is misleading. Consistency means tendency to score the same, regardless of whether that’s high or low.

    What you’ve done, if I understand correctly, is to take all review scores for each title for a given publisher, convert them to a scale between -2 and 2, and find the total score.

    All this has done is find a less precise non-weighted metacritic average, see what I mean?

    Imagine you had companies with the following scores on separate titles:
    Company A: 90%
    Company B: 100%, 80%, 100%, 80%, 90%
    Compnay C: 91%, 91%, 90%, 89%, 89%

    Who is most consistent? Without adjusting for total titles made, in order, it would be A, C, then B. A has no spread, C as +/-1%, and B has +/-10%.

    So how do you adjust for total titles made? That’s trickier. First you have to have the correlation of # of titles to average score deviation. Then the square of that correlation would be how much effect that the # of titles affects spread.

    Hope this makes sense.

  • Lorenzo Wang says:

    BTW you know what would be a good use of your data…

    Take the average non-weighted review scores for a title. Find the difference between this and the actual metacritic weighted average.

    Now find the average difference for all titles for a publisher. Let’s call this score discrepancy.

    Now find the correlation of average score discrepancy of each company to company market cap.

    Voila! We now can see exactly if Metacritic scores are actually biased by how rich a company is! :D

    If you have a link to your data, I’d love to try calculating this myself too.

  • admin says:

    Lorenzo,

    Everything you have said makes perfect sense, and I’m glad you are taking the time to challenge. Most people would just throw a rock and run, but it’s these challenges that make future results provide even better context and meaning. As for your comment about the article name being mis-leading, I was prepared for that argument, and I certainly see your point. I would love to reach out to you in the future if you don’t mind. This is good stuff.

  • admin says:

    LOL… I hadn’t thought about that one! Love it! I’ll drop you a note soon and would love hear any more thoughts you have. Good Stuff Lorenzo. Thanks a million.

  • Brandon says:

    Great work! The main thing I’d add is an adjustment for sales. A crummy game that no one plays doesn’t hurt a publisher’s reputation as much. Activision is a great example. They score poorly here because of their value line. The customers who care about Metacritic probably never come close to touching any of those games and, therefore, will still have a great opinion of Activision because the majority of the games they have played are hits.

  • admin says:

    Brandon,

    As mentioned in the report, the summary tables you saw come with an infinite amount of disclaimers. Your point regarding Activisions value line is a perfect example. Certainly, correlating with sales would be helpful. One other thought is to divide the contributing media outlets into different categories, i.e. Game-Centric outlets vs. consumer based outlets. From there, you could focus the average non-weighted scores for consumer outlets towards the value-line. That too might provide some unique insight. You could also create such a custom scoring index for North America vs. International outlets.

  • [...] review the feedback and comments from the related coverage associated from our previous post “The Most and Least Consistent Videogame Publishers.”   One report that many wanted to see was a developer specific score card which I [...]

  • I was about to bitch about the ambiguity in your title, but I see Lorenzo beat me to it. You mean “consistently good” when you say consistency, which is bad English.

    The most consistent publisher would be the one that only released one title this year - say Introversions, or someone small and self-publishing like that.

  • admin says:

    Thanks for the feedback Dan, much appreciated. The question asked from the client was basically “Can you show me which publishers have a record of consistently creating the best games.” I certainly could have worded things a bit differently.

    Thanks again.

    – Tim

  • Leave a Reply

    Bad Behavior has blocked 30 access attempts in the last 7 days.