Reviewers are always right
Reviewers have the very important task of giving game developers feedback and consumers recommendations. It's nice to know that they use their position of power wisely and don't screw over either consumers or developers. Let me enumerate some of the great things reviewers do.
With so many games being ported to multiple platforms, it's great that reviewers don't take the time to review each platform individually. Oftentimes, one may be significantly better than the other, but why waste the readers time with a careful evaluation and comparison of the different versions? Let's use “X-Men: Next Dimension” for PS2 and GameCube as an example. Both reviews on IGN said "The textures on the character models also appear to be using too many shadows and are a tad on the blurry side." The GameCube version has higher resolution textures, so they are significantly less blurry. Same line in both reviews, but different textures. The GameCube review even mentions the menu options in the PS2 version, but the GameCube version had different names.
It's also nice that reviewers are so aware of all the finer points of games. They always claim things are at a high framerate when they are smooth regardless of the actual framerate. So, any effort to get your game to run at 60 fps is wasted if it drops down below 60 on occasion. Sometimes, they make conjectures on how the technology of a game works, and they are completely wrong, but at least they make an effort, right? Isn't that more important than accuracy?
Reviewers are NEVER biased by past successes or failures. If Blizzard were to release a real stinker, I'm sure it'd get EXACTLY the same reviews as if some small developer that has a history of failures released the same game. It's very difficult for people to be unbiased, but reviewers are able to overcome all of these. Likewise, reviewers are never influenced by other reviews out there. There definitely isn't a tendency to conform to other reviews either... People have a tendency to trust a reviewer with an average review, but reviewers aren't afraid to alienate themselves based on their own personal feelings.
Since reviewers are so accurate, reviews are becoming increasingly important to game developers. Warner Bros is going to punish its licensees if they didn't get good enough reviews. So, I applaud Warner Bros for taking the initiative for making the true authorities on game quality the determining factor for developer's financial rewards. They are trying to prevent bad games, which sell based on a license, which I think we can all agree is a good thing. As a game developer, I think Warner Bros idea is reasonable. Developers of bad games that sell well just because of the license shouldn't be rewarded. But should reviewers be the ones with the power? As this article proves, they clearly are the authorities on games, so they are a great choice.