« Clive Barker's Jericho trailer | Main | Hollywood & Games: notes from Thomas Tull & Mitch Davis »

June 27, 2007



I remain unconvinced by most of the arguments put forward for commercial convergence. I still don't want to see licenses. Videogames seem to get on best when left to their own devices and pursuing their own ideas, rather than being extended into TV or film, or made out of cinematic intellectual properties.

I've come to understand the useful aspects of "convergence" to be more about consumers' engagement with various media, and the change in relationship between creators and their audience, rather than in saying that games and TV have to 'merge' in some way: ie machinima rather than Uwe Boll.


Jim, you may not want to see licences, but they bring in the money. Just look at this week's chart for instance. In my opinion without them the industry would no longer be a going concern. Even if there are more Pirates of The Caribbean and Superman Returns and less Batman The Movie and Chronicles of Riddick.

It's like Ben Affleck said... First you do the safe film, then you do the art film... then you do a film as a favour to your friend who says you owe him.


Actually that's not true.

The biggest titles are almost always original to gaming, and the biggest title on any given platform is not licensed.


If the Affleck quote is true, then it is only true of genres of games, not of the license/original IP divide.


Ah but what I mean is that the licenced game is the "safe film". Do a game with of a licenced property and the majority of the time you're going to get a game that sells well. It doesn't have to be an all-time best seller (although some on that list are) to rake in the cash I imagine.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Recent links