Enigma, if game coders/developers are signing contracts knowing their salary is at stake if the game isn't great, that is called risk. If they are not willing to take that risk, they shouldn't sign up for the job. Bonuses, on the other hand, are added-in salary. Again, they shouldn't overspend on a budget if they don't have that cash in hand (i.e. taking on a financial risk). Most coders I know do not get paid based on whether the game/project gets completed, they get paid for their time during the process and that's it.

Does every review site always review every game, too? That could be part of where "they select certain game reviews" to put in the meta-score. If certain groups don't review a game, it can't be compiled, and would explain why there's an inconsistent addition to the meta-score.

Finally, as a consumer, I frequently query GameFAQs and metacritic for review scores, as they give me additional info before I make my purchases. If those sources impact me as a consumer, they also impact the publishers and their developers. So, why not account for either poor sales OR the metacritic score, but not both?

Enigma, if game coders/developers are signing contracts knowing their salary is at stake if the game isn't great, that is called risk. If they are not willing to take that risk, they shouldn't sign up for the job.

(Sorry but I have a hard time believing that ANYONE would take that kind of risk. Actually doing work with NO guarantee of compensation is kinda stupid. I can see things like the bonuses, but not withholding payment for work actually done.)

Bonuses, on the other hand, are added-in salary. Again, they shouldn't overspend on a budget if they don't have that cash in hand (i.e. taking on a financial risk). Most coders I know do not get paid based on whether the game/project gets completed, they get paid for their time during the process and that's it.

(If we're simply talking EXTRA income and bonuses, then you have a point. But again I don't think it stops there.)

Does every review site always review every game, too? That could be part of where "they select certain game reviews" to put in the meta-score. If certain groups don't review a game, it can't be compiled, and would explain why there's an inconsistent addition to the meta-score.

(So would the fact that they all don't use the same scale to score ther games, but I'm sure you didn't overlook that.)

Finally, as a consumer, I frequently query GameFAQs and metacritic for review scores, as they give me additional info before I make my purchases. If those sources impact me as a consumer, they also impact the publishers and their developers. So, why not account for either poor sales OR the metacritic score, but not both?

(Because you're not the one who HIRED THEM TO PUT IN WORK TO MAKE THE GAMES. You didn't hire them to do a job to make the product. I don't give a d*** if my game makes a 0 out of 5, 100 or whatever, I'm not working long hours coding or programming for free.)