Warren Spector on Licensing

An anonymous reader writes about an "interview with Warren Spector about his thoughts on licensing movies for games. From the article: 'At these Hollywood meetings, the same thing has happened to me more than once, with multiple people...I describe the game I want to do. I tell them I can deliver you a triple-A title for this cost...Spector names a high figure; no one has ever yet written a check that big...They think it over. Then they say...What could you do with twice as much money?'"

Comments

Hollywood's next move

[bigwavejas]

It's no wonder Hollywood is considering alternatives, they've just experienced their worst box-office slump in 20 years. Ticket sales are down nearly 8% compared with 2004. With movie revenue quickly shrinking (due to lackluster movies, overpriced tickets and dvd's), this seems like a logical transition for Hollywood studios.

Hollywood is going through a transition and struggling to find its next niche. It's evident the gaming industry experiencing a virtual explosion (with games like WoW posting users at 3.5 mil) so I'm not surprised they're considering this move... advertisers have already jumped on the bandwagon, displaying their logo's throughout the installation process for many games.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[hobbesx]

Don't forget the rise of the home theater, and the terrific increase in public assholes...

Re:Hollywood's next move

[op12]

Hollywood is going through a transition and struggling to find its next niche.

Maybe they could go back to being creative...that seemed to work well. It's the boatload of sequels (often sequels of pseudo-flops) and remakes that's killing the industry. Sure, they want to guarantee a profit, but relying on sequels usually doesn't work, with few exceptions.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[AKAImBatman]

I think most of us got that it was a play on "Public Assets". (Or maybe I'm hearing the Battlestar Galactica remake in my head: "I got thrown in the brig for striking a superior asshole, sir.")

I wouldn't be too worried about it. The Chicago Red Eye just ran a story the other day called "The Bling Culture." They managed to dig up mid 20's people who were making $50,000/yr salaries, yet buying $2000 guici bags monthly and driving HumVees. Their point was that a LOT of people are currently living far outside their means. The problem is that they're young enough to not yet feel the effects of their spending. It's a rather hideous sitation, and it may result in disasterous economic consequences.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[CyricZ]

Indeed, they're experiencing what may be a significant problem with American-style capitalism. There is no place for innovation (due to the risk of not making immediate profit) in Big Business American-style capitalism. That's clearly displayed in the vast selection of sequals and triquels Hollywood puts out today. But the unwillingness of the Big Boys of Hollywood to truly innovate (ie. produce new movies) actually decreases quality, and thus purchases. Their revenue, and thus profits, decrease.

Now, in true capitalism these businesses would either exit the market or would fold. Profits are the potential benefit of risk. Profits are not to be expected in a true capitalistic marketplace, but are the reward for those who successfully innovate and make a worthwhile contribution to the market. But that is not how American-style Big Business capitalism works. Profits are treated as a right, regardless of the products that the firms produce. It is that socialistic-corporate view of profits as a God-given right that is giving us these shitty movies year after year.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[ChefAndCoder]

The only people talking about the slump are those who are being spoon fed from the movie industry. There's a heavy vested interest on the part of the industry to act like they're in a slump and blame it on something (piracy especially).

I quote from Dave Poland:http://www.thehotbutton.com/today/hot.butto n/2005_thb/050621_tue.html/

Three of the eight highest grossing domestic releases of all time were released last year in February (Passion of the Christ), May (Shrek 2) and July (Spider-Man 2). The top two films of last year release by this date has put $740 million into the till by now. This year, the top two have been good for $530 million by this date... a different of about $210 million, which by itself makes up for all but about $90 million (or about a 2% drop from last year) of the current "slump."

There is no slump.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Coryoth]

The Hollywood "box office slump" is highly overrated. They are, indeed, down 8% on last year. That is, they are down by about 1 bloakcbuster film, like say "The Passion of Christ" which managed to draw a lot of cash out of an otherwise non-movie going demographic. Given the remarkable year on year growth (this year is still up on 2003) with little levelling out and no dips, it makes as much sense to call 2004 anomolously successful as it does to this year unsuccessful. They are still making bucket loads of cash, more than they did in 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999 the list goes on.

I'm interested to know why people are apparently interested in pitching this year as "unsuccessful" or "performing poorly". I wonder whether that's a product of the studio and resulting media obsession with "first weekend box office takings", and hence a general media focus on immediate box office returns. I also wonder if it isn't in some part a pitch on the part of studios to queue up some more lobbied legislation while whining about the pirates destroying their profits.

Jedidiah.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[ShieldW0lf]

Hollywood: We've been chugging out sequel after sequel and they're just not making very much money. We notice that you guys in the game industry are doing well. How would you like to partner with us, and we'll fund you and give you licenses for the right to make your game a sequel of one of our movies?

Game Maker: What, am I stupid?

Hollywood: We were thinking of a budget of 100 million dollars.

Game Maker: Ok, I was thinking of changing careers in the next few years or so anyways.

Game Player: Scrabble anyone?

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Coryoth]

Their point was that a LOT of people are currently living far outside their means. The problem is that they're young enough to not yet feel the effects of their spending. It's a rather hideous sitation, and it may result in disasterous economic consequences.

The US trade deficit is appalling. And what's worse it's very steadily gowing. Quite simply this is not sustainable. At some point the current account deficit is going to have to turn around and start decreasing - the question is, what could cause that. Massive reductions is budget deficits would be a good start, but that doesn't seem to be happening (for those who will quote Bush speeches about reductions: it's largely book keeping and managing to push Iraq and Afghanistan expenses off the books for a while). A shift in consumer buying habits reducing the massive demand for imported goods might help a little - but as you say, the culture just isn't headed that way. The other option is for the US Dollar to drop significantly. That may not be pretty.

The US current account deficit is running at over 6% of GDP. That is, quite simply ridiculously high. 6% of GDP is the point where economists usually start getting very worried. It's the level that places like Argentina, and Indonesia were running before things broke badly. The US can hold out longer because the the US Dollar is the defacto global currency, so people are far more inclined to hold it. Somethign better start reversing the trend in the current account soon though, because this really can't go on forever, and if it snaps the way, say, Argentina did, things will not be pretty.

Jedidiah.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[robertjw]

Maybe they could go back to being creative...that seemed to work well.

That and

1. Get rid of the half hour of commercials
2. Get some ushers to keep other people from being noisy and rude at the theatre
3. Reduce the price of tickets

In that order. I like going to the movies, and I can afford the $9 once in a while, although I'd go more often if the price was lower. What I will not tolerate is watching actual advertising before the movie. Previews are one thing, but commercials are, for me, unacceptable. The other thing I will not tolerate is noise in the theatre. Why would I go and pay for a movie when I miss a significant part of it due to people talking or babies crying.

These three factors have changed movie going from something I will do on the spur of the moment to something that I really consider before doing. Used to be you could go see a mediocre movie and not feel guilty about it. Now, if the movie is not something I really want to see on a big screen, like Star Wars, I'll just wait two months for the DVD.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[CyricZ]

Indeed, any truly competent economist is very worried about the situation. But what can he or she really do or even say? Of course the obvious thing to do would be to suggest stop wasting literally hundreds of billions of dollars on various wars of aggression. But then he or she will be labelled a "terrorist sympathizer" or a "liberal".

Perhaps the problem is that American is innundated with morons. Morons don't understand economics. Morons find it easier to label people as "supporters of terror" than actually improving the situation. A strong economy is earned through hard work, investment and productivity increases. Morons are not particularly interested in such things.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[renderhead]

Are there any wars that aren't "wars of aggression"? Isn't all war wasteful? You obviously don't believe that the war in which the U.S. is currently engaged is worth the money we spend on it, but it's not as though the administration invaded Iraq just because they enjoy that kind of thing.

War is dangerous and expensive, but the U.S. doesn't go to war unless it intends to do something very important (note that I say "intends", not necessarily "succeeds"). Given that fact, the importance of the goal justifies the cost in dollars to the supporters of the objective.

Heck, it's pretty expensive to even have a military! Why not dismantle the whole thing and save a bundle? And arresting criminals costs us millions of dollars and the lives of many policemen every year. It's high time we stopped wasting these resources!

Re:Hollywood's next move

[Golias]

Indeed, any truly competent economist is very worried about the situation.

No, any competent economist (as opposed to editorial writers for the New York Times) understands that trade deficits are completely irrelevant.

We are the number one importer in the world. We are also the number one exporter in the world. Furthermore, we are the number one economy in the world (Japan is #2). In other words, we are the economic envy of the world. We're rich. Filthy, stinking rich. Our "poor" people wear $100 shoes and $200 sports-logo jackets. People in northern states regard air conditioning as an "essential" rather than the extravagant luxury which most countries in similar climates would consider it to be.

All a trade deficit means is that there are a lot of US dollars floating around outside of US borders. That's a good thing.

Now, if you want to hand-wring about the federal budget deficit, that's a whole other discussion.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[FLEB]

The first thing I will do is rip the DVD to my compy eliminate the ads and then return the DVD to the studio and demand a refund.

You know, you'd probably have a solid ethical stand there if you just picked one of the two.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[CyricZ]

A "war of agression" from the pespective of America. The Iraqi citizens are in a "war of defence" against the American and British invaders. It's all a matter of perspective. In response to the previous poster's post, it is concerning an American perspective on the situation.

Remember, the citizenry of the US is very different and very separate from those who are actually calling the shots. While the citizens do their little election dance every four years, it makes very little difference. They're choosing between two people from basically the same group. The people running the country do benefit financially from war. They aren't dying; it's the sons and daughters of the American citizenry who are over there right now.

Re:Hollywood's next move

[OwnedByTwoCats]

Some wars are defensive, rather than a war of aggressive. E.g. Soviet Union in WWII. They were attacked; they fought back.

At this point in time, I believe that George W. Bush declared war in Iraq to gather political capital. To him and his closest advisors, that was very important.

9/11 was an excuse. "The U.S." didn't intend anything; there was no poll of the 300 million residents. There was an elite group of individuals that conspired with each other and manipulated and cajoled the congress, the media, and the public to go along. In large part, they did this by fixing the intelligence around the policy.

Why, if the goal of the war was very important, has it shifted like the ocean waves. WMDs! No, restructuring the Middle East! No, a liberal democracy! Freedom for half of the Iraqis, and burkas for the other half.

What was the greater purpose for which Casey Sheehan's organization risked and lost his life?

Re:Hollywood's next move

[OwnedByTwoCats]

It all depends on what is important. If giving the up-and-coming challenger to America's dominance in the world (i.e. Communist China) the keys to the fiscal health of America isn't important, then don't worry about the deficit.

China gets dollars by running a trade surplus with the US. They then use those dollars to buy U.S. Government securities. And U.S. companies. Unocal? Each of those dollars floating around outside of US borders represents a claim against the US for goods and services. When those claims are asserted, there will be trouble.

Read about 1956, Britain, France, and the Suez.

Re:What is a "triple A" title?

[Pxtl]

I'm curious about this too. I've been seeing the "triple A" buzzword come around recently, and it scares me. I assume it refers to the budget and hype level of a title. This means that the industry has totally given up on considering games based on their quality, just on the amount of labour poured into the game and it's promotion.

Re:What is a "triple A" title?

[MaestroSartori]

In my experience with my previous employer (I work in the games industry), triple-A means virtually nothing in practice. It's a goal, an aim, and a bunch of marketing drivel designed to make something sound better than it is. What they failed to realise was that while it may be possible to polish a turd, all you end up with is a shiny turd. But I digress...

Real triple-A titles are those which achieve critical and commercial success. So, things like Deus Ex, Half-Life, Mario 64, Zelda (not that I like it personally), Goldeneye, GTA3, etc.

Great opportunities ahead, BUT...

[teutonic_leech]

... looks like the movie studios are falling into the same trap like the dotcomers in the late 90s: drop more money into it and it'll be bigger/better/shinier/etc... I've run software development projects before and the lessons I've learned is that there is a certain 'sweet spot' - no matter WHAT you do - may it be developing a J2EE app, a PS2 game, an Indie movie, or a TV show (I've been on both sides of the spectrum): if you throw too much money at it people tend to become too complacent and whatever you build will be bloated and will have no soul. Maybe too many opinions and/or opportunities when there's too much money available. I really think that human beings are at their best when they're under pressure AND when they're inspired at the same time. It's a strange phenomenon and I could probably write a long posting about that but I'm sure most of you know what I mean. Come on - what was that killer P2P app you were working on in your dorm? ;-) The stuff you're doing now might be corporate crap compared with that - I'm personally guilty of the very same. Anyway, these studios probably COULD help make great games and bring in capabilities that would enhance the experience, but they should only throw in as much money as is necessary. I know many of you will start bitching about how Hollywood is all evil and that they only produce crap - well, there were always periods where good movies came out and periods (like today) when only crap was released. Most of the time it were outsiders that forced Hollywood to release good stuff - experiments that paid off. If you leave it up to those money grabbing suits you get the usual canned recepy crap that we've had to endure this summer. Hey, maybe the game industry is going to wind up buying the entertainment industry - it happened with AOL/TW ;-)

Good, let the bastards do it

[defile]

Maybe after Hollywood's sustained saturation bombing campaign of ``Meet the Fockers: The Game'' and ``Deuce Bigolo in Thailand Happy Ending'', game publishers will be begging for independent game developers to take them back, along with this thing they call "original ideas".

Don't forget information...

[shmlco]

Another cause for the overall decline, that's often forgotten, is information.

Blogs, independent review sites, aggregators (Rotten Tomatoe), and other sources are giving moviegoers more information up front about what movies are really worth seeing, and which ones are over-hyped and over-priced.

This as opposed to what we had just a few years ago, when the newspaper and TV reviewers gushed and drooled over every latest "blockbuster" release. Still do in fact, but now we have better sources.

I really don't think Hollywood is producing that many more bad movies... it just seems like it because we've been warned beforehand.

Rated I for ILLEGAL

[HunterZ]

Ticket sales are down nearly 8% compared with 2004. With movie revenue quickly shrinking (due to lackluster movies, overpriced tickets and dvd's), this seems like a logical transition for Hollywood studios.

No, it's due to pirating. Haven't you seen the little "Rated I" placards at the ticket booth and the commercials full of pleas from starving moviemakers?

I'm being sarcastic of course - I agree with the parent poster. The scary thing is that it sounds like they think they can try the same tactics in the game's industry, and we all know that that's just going to make it sink like the movie industry is now.

from someone in the industry

[adnausium]

As someone who has worked in the Audio & Video production industry for the better part of a decade, I can tell you the problem inherant in the whole movie making system: GREED. Although there are some exceptions to the rule movie making has been getting cheaper not more exspensive. They take less time to make, methods of production are easier and the digital revolution has made the mediums on which a movie is created much less exspensive. What studios could start doing (aside from avoiding sequals and crappy remakes of crappy 80's TV shows) is looking for cheaper talent...these maybe should be getting a piece of the pie (i.e. revenues) but not as large of a slice as they are currently. For every big name actor demanding 30 mil for a part, there are thousands of very talented up and coming actors & actress who could do it (and would do it) for less. Less exspensive movie productions can contribute directly to cheaper movie tickets. And stop making these mammoth F'ing multi-plexes!! Hell the sound is better in a smaller room anyway.

Mischaracterization

[hackwrench]

You make it sound as if he cares if they are liberal or conservative. It makes sense to me that he just doesn't like uninvited people hanging around his property.