welsh
Junkmaster
I saw this and thought some of you folks might be interested-
http://www.economist.com/business/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=2541401
Video games
Gaming goes to Hollywood
Mar 25th 2004
From The Economist print edition
The games business is becoming more like Hollywood, but differences remain
THE latest James Bond adventure (see picture) is at number one, “Finding Nemo” at number 12, and “The Lord of the Rings” at number 18. A chart of DVD sales or box-office receipts? No, this is last week's British video-games chart, a vivid illustration of how the once-separate worlds of movies and games have become increasingly intertwined. Film actors, even famous ones, now voice their characters in games too. Animators, artists and model-makers move freely between the two worlds; the same companies produce trailers both for games and for films. People in the booming games business are fond of pointing out that worldwide games sales, at around $20 billion a year, now exceed movie box-office revenues. With every passing day, gaming seems less like Hollywood's poor relation.
The convergence between films and games makes sense for many reasons. Both special-effects-laden blockbusters and shoot-'em-ups rely on computer power, and as games consoles become more capable their output becomes ever more cinematic. Indeed, modern games based on “Star Wars” look even better than the original films, since today's games consoles far outperform any special-effects technology available back in the 1980s. Costs have increased as the production values of games have improved: the typical budget is now $5m-8m.
Where tie-in games used to be an afterthought, they are now integrated into the film-making process from the start, says Robert Kotick, the boss of Hollywood-based Activision, the second-largest games publisher. “Studios used to regard game licensees like the T-shirt licensees,” he says, and only provide access to artwork late in the film-making process. But no longer. His firm has a dozen people inside the studios of DreamWorks working on the game of “Shrek 2”, an animated film scheduled for release in May.
Creativity killer
The worry, however, is that gaming is also becoming Hollywood-like in a less desirable sense. Nick Gibson of Games Investor, a consultancy, notes that as costs rise, risk-averse games publishers regard film franchises as a safe bet. But as movie tie-ins and sequels proliferate, there is concern that creativity is suffering. “We are seeing less and less innovation, because the stakes are so high,” says Scott Orr, a former executive at Electronic Arts, the biggest games publisher. He founded Sorrent, a firm that makes games for mobile phones. With their small screens and limited processing power, mobile phones are a throwback to the 1980s, when a lone programmer toiling over a computer could cook up a hit game in a few weeks. “It allows us to innovate again,” says Mr Orr.
It is also getting harder for independent developers to secure publishing deals, particularly as the big publishers take more development in-house. But, says Mr Gibson, small developers can still do well if their games are of sufficient quality. A good example is Pivotal, a British company based in a converted barn near Bath, and maker of a series of hit military games.
For his part, Mr Kotick insists that the growing scale and maturity of the games industry is not stifling creativity. Indeed, he says, it is important not to take the comparison with Hollywood too far. He moved his company from San Francisco to Hollywood in 1992, expecting to be able to exploit synergies between the two industries, but found that proximity to Hollywood was of limited value.
For despite the convergence between games and films, the games industry is still different in a number of important respects. For instance, game-making is iterative: it is possible to market-test a game and then modify it, and to do so repeatedly during the game's development cycle—something that is not really possible with a film. That makes the games business far more predictable, and accounts for its far higher returns. Activision's game “True Crime”, for example, released last November, raked in $100m in its first month. Only two films released that month earned as much, says Mr Kotick, and they cost far more to make.
Another notable difference, says Mr Gibson, is that in the games world, sequels often outsell the original game—something that is very unusual in the movie business. That is because, while the plots and jokes of movie sequels are mostly thinner than the original, there is scope to improve on a successful game with technological enhancements (such as better graphics) and features such as new weapons, vehicles or character abilities. These ensure that many game sequels are better than the original. As a result, gaming concepts and brands are extremely valuable.
Much has been made of the trend to sell the movie rights to popular games. The best known example is “Tomb Raider”, though the most recent game in the series, and the second of two films based on the franchise, were flops. But even though the film rights to many games have been sold—most recently, those to “Prince of Persia” and “Soul Calibur”—the main trend will continue to be to make games from films, not vice versa. Indeed, says Mr Kotick, publishers are starting to think twice about selling the rights to their games, since a bad film adaptation—over which the game publisher has little control—can tarnish a lucrative game franchise. There could turn out to be limits to the cosiness between the two industries after all.
http://www.economist.com/business/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=2541401
Video games
Gaming goes to Hollywood
Mar 25th 2004
From The Economist print edition
The games business is becoming more like Hollywood, but differences remain
THE latest James Bond adventure (see picture) is at number one, “Finding Nemo” at number 12, and “The Lord of the Rings” at number 18. A chart of DVD sales or box-office receipts? No, this is last week's British video-games chart, a vivid illustration of how the once-separate worlds of movies and games have become increasingly intertwined. Film actors, even famous ones, now voice their characters in games too. Animators, artists and model-makers move freely between the two worlds; the same companies produce trailers both for games and for films. People in the booming games business are fond of pointing out that worldwide games sales, at around $20 billion a year, now exceed movie box-office revenues. With every passing day, gaming seems less like Hollywood's poor relation.
The convergence between films and games makes sense for many reasons. Both special-effects-laden blockbusters and shoot-'em-ups rely on computer power, and as games consoles become more capable their output becomes ever more cinematic. Indeed, modern games based on “Star Wars” look even better than the original films, since today's games consoles far outperform any special-effects technology available back in the 1980s. Costs have increased as the production values of games have improved: the typical budget is now $5m-8m.
Where tie-in games used to be an afterthought, they are now integrated into the film-making process from the start, says Robert Kotick, the boss of Hollywood-based Activision, the second-largest games publisher. “Studios used to regard game licensees like the T-shirt licensees,” he says, and only provide access to artwork late in the film-making process. But no longer. His firm has a dozen people inside the studios of DreamWorks working on the game of “Shrek 2”, an animated film scheduled for release in May.
Creativity killer
The worry, however, is that gaming is also becoming Hollywood-like in a less desirable sense. Nick Gibson of Games Investor, a consultancy, notes that as costs rise, risk-averse games publishers regard film franchises as a safe bet. But as movie tie-ins and sequels proliferate, there is concern that creativity is suffering. “We are seeing less and less innovation, because the stakes are so high,” says Scott Orr, a former executive at Electronic Arts, the biggest games publisher. He founded Sorrent, a firm that makes games for mobile phones. With their small screens and limited processing power, mobile phones are a throwback to the 1980s, when a lone programmer toiling over a computer could cook up a hit game in a few weeks. “It allows us to innovate again,” says Mr Orr.
It is also getting harder for independent developers to secure publishing deals, particularly as the big publishers take more development in-house. But, says Mr Gibson, small developers can still do well if their games are of sufficient quality. A good example is Pivotal, a British company based in a converted barn near Bath, and maker of a series of hit military games.
For his part, Mr Kotick insists that the growing scale and maturity of the games industry is not stifling creativity. Indeed, he says, it is important not to take the comparison with Hollywood too far. He moved his company from San Francisco to Hollywood in 1992, expecting to be able to exploit synergies between the two industries, but found that proximity to Hollywood was of limited value.
For despite the convergence between games and films, the games industry is still different in a number of important respects. For instance, game-making is iterative: it is possible to market-test a game and then modify it, and to do so repeatedly during the game's development cycle—something that is not really possible with a film. That makes the games business far more predictable, and accounts for its far higher returns. Activision's game “True Crime”, for example, released last November, raked in $100m in its first month. Only two films released that month earned as much, says Mr Kotick, and they cost far more to make.
Another notable difference, says Mr Gibson, is that in the games world, sequels often outsell the original game—something that is very unusual in the movie business. That is because, while the plots and jokes of movie sequels are mostly thinner than the original, there is scope to improve on a successful game with technological enhancements (such as better graphics) and features such as new weapons, vehicles or character abilities. These ensure that many game sequels are better than the original. As a result, gaming concepts and brands are extremely valuable.
Much has been made of the trend to sell the movie rights to popular games. The best known example is “Tomb Raider”, though the most recent game in the series, and the second of two films based on the franchise, were flops. But even though the film rights to many games have been sold—most recently, those to “Prince of Persia” and “Soul Calibur”—the main trend will continue to be to make games from films, not vice versa. Indeed, says Mr Kotick, publishers are starting to think twice about selling the rights to their games, since a bad film adaptation—over which the game publisher has little control—can tarnish a lucrative game franchise. There could turn out to be limits to the cosiness between the two industries after all.