So I attended yet another Games summit, this time the Hollywood and Games Summit in sunny Hollywood on Jun 26-27.  Held at the  recently renovated Renaissance Hollywood hotel (nice pool!  Too bad I didn’t get to use it…), it was a small show co-hosted by the Games industry as represented by CMP and Hollywood as represented by The Hollywood Reporter.  IBM wasn’t a panelist or speaker at the event, but I did get a chance to listen to several interesting panel discussions.  Here are some of summit’s highlights, an admittedly biased and limited view (you can go to the summit website for details on the show).

The Opening Keynote was none other than a very raspy Clive Barker, who used a recent negative review of the games industry by film critic Roger Ebert as a backdrop for his interview.  Mr. Ebert basically asserted that Games aren’t artistic endeavors worthy of time like great films or books, which set the blogosphere a buzz a while back.  Clive was expectedly sharp-tongued and tart, but most of his commentary was peppered with expletives which I’de love to reprint here but alas, it’s a family blog (grin).

From a games industry standpoint the discussion was fairly limited to his experiences as an artist and storyteller, and the launch of his new game, Jericho, in the fall of 2007.  Originally started as a book, but he realized it would make a terrible book but a great game.  Which in turn led to an interesting discussion on how games are still finding their vocabulary and that innovation in how stories are told and new worlds created through the medium of games is still young.

The next session was “How Talent Can Cross The Digital Divide”.  To me the most important discussion point was around how strongly the panelists felt about the eventual convergence of the pipeline (example: The Transformers would have benefited from using the same engine to run the game as to generate much of the film’s animation content) and the rise of Machinima. 

The next session, “Shephearding A Property Through The Transmedia Landscape”, had some tidbits.  I wasn’t convinced that the term “convergence” will be replaced with “transmedia” (as a better way to describe the merging of formerly siloed media); to me it’s just another catch-phrase like Web 2.0 (oh wait, that one DID catch on.)

They recommended we all read a book call Convergence Culture - yet another thing I don’t have time to read (I finally managed to finish Tom Friedman’s The World is Flat!).    They also felt that serialized content (Lost, Alias, Heroes) lends itself better to transmedia properties (well of course they would say that, they’re producers of serialized content).  Especially since ensemble writing is needed for narratives, just like games, so it’s easier to use the same creatives and IP to move from one media to another.  Makes sense to me.  One example: Heroes.  Another older example: Alias became a game as a separate licensed deal, but for true transmedia (there’s that word again) integration to happen, especially on the creative side, don’t just sell the IP and give up creative control in the other media, learn how to integrate the creatives, production, experience.  A new example of that: Neil Young’s Majestic back in 2001/2002.  Though it was a commercial failure, it pointed the way towards true transmedia IP.  The panelists felt Neil’s recent keynote at GDC sounded very much like what TV producers go through all the time, hence there’s more commonality there in production processes and project management than gamers or TV/Film producers think there is.

Speaking of which, one of the key inhibitors to that transmedia landscape is the continued siloing between the creative pipeline divisions.  Better integration between the separate divisions, especially in the Majors, is needed.  Film and TV producers need to better educate themselves on games and new media, games producers need to learn how Hollywood really operates, and look for those similarities to their own production and project management – executive production of original IP is very similar (which is why Ubisoft is entering the animation and film studio business!)

Oh, in addition to “transmedia”, another term I wasn’t familiar with but was used excessively by the panelists was “ARG” (Alternate Reality Games). 

The Wednesday morning keynote featured Thomas Tull (Chairman, Legendary Pictures) and Mitch Davis (CEO, Brash Entertainment).  The (only) interesting thing to me that came out of this panel was their “3 big industry trends”: (1) technology innovation (the next gen consoles, rendering, etc.), (2) business model innovation and (3) creative innovation (being able to take advantage of new modes of narrative).  Being the “innovator’s innovator” we are, I have to admit it warmed my Big Blue heart a little to hear that.

The next panel was “Digital Animation Between Film and Games”.  A little technical for me, I’m afraid;  I was a chemical engineer before I became a technology marketer, so while I ‘get geek’, sometimes the technical jargon overwhelms me.  But a few things leap out.  One was the panelists’ challenges with real-time rendering; games have a history of real-time rendering while films have history of overnights.  That’s going to be a challenge as games and film/TV continue to merge; IBM has seen this specific issue in our clients as well.  As a result we’ll see more real-time rendering and film-quality HD being offloaded onto the next gen consoles because they can handle it.  There are limits, of course: asset sharing between game and film can try to be as collaborative as possible, but for the next while it’s going to be mainly around reference and research assets (2D mockups, drafts, etc.), as you can’t often reuse the same models.  One example was in a film like Surf’s Up you might want to see a specific detail like a toenail, while in the game you’de never worry about that.

On the personnel front, expect to see increased staff migration between Hollywood and Games – now that next gen consoles can handle film-quality visuals, a lot of Hollywood creatives are excited about moving into the Games space.  More migration from Hollywood to Games rather than vice-versa. 

There was a swift kick to perceived game company inferiority complexes.   The panelists agreed that games companies really are becoming media companies, so stop calling yourself a “game company”, dammit!  Seriously, I agree that we are seeing more and more similarities in development, distribution, and business structures between games companies and “more traditional” media companies. 

The next panel was “What Digital Distribution Can Do For You”.  I’ve been seeing this issue being discussed more and more, but with the continued heavy reliance on traditional retail distribution (and to a greater degree e-commerce transactions but still physical media), this area is still a little young.  But definitely going to be increasing in importance, so it’s an area the games industry should keep an eye on.  Unfortunately, the panel focused on Lonelygirl15 and Flow, which honestly to me didn’t seem to have that strong an applicability to console or PC games, or even casual games.  I think instead they should have taken lessons from the nascent digital distribution of films, and how MMOGs have started looking at digital downloads of components rather than the core client, and how web clients might evolve and combined with sufficient bandwidth make PC (or console) clients obsolete.  But none of that was discussed so to me that particular panel was a dud.

 Same goes for the next panel, “YouTube, Flash, and the Hive Mind – Afterworld case study”.  ‘nuf said. 

The next panel, “Integrating Games into television”, looked at using machinima to create TV content.  Honestly I didn’t believe some of the panelists’ assertions that the technology is in place to finally create compelling content.  To me it still looks like grainy amateur video on YouTube.  For poking fun at Judge Judy, I’ll buy it.  For a “professional quality” film, TV or game property, nuh ‘uh.

The next panel was “Creating Parallel Community Experiences Between Entertainment and MMOs”.  There was a lot about creative development and cross-pollination, and questions for one another, but honestly no one seemed to put out an opinion you could sink your teeth into.

The next panel was “Shades of Gray: Sharing Management and Production Processes Between Films and Games”, and included the very same Neil Young (now VP & GM, Electronic Arts Los Angeles) I referenced above.  There were a few interesting take-aways boding well for the cross-pollination between Hollywood and Games.  The talents of film business people is becoming much more relevant to game production as cross-pollination continues.  Pipeline convergence is usually strongest at the beginning – creating IP that can move across multiple media best happens at the beginning of the creative cycle.  They don’t think there will be “full” convergence but it is happening – “games are like movies and movies are like games” – is starting to happen, and has been happening at places like LucasArts for over 6 years (being all at the same facility in San Francisco helps, I’m sure!) where we have a consistent pipeline, and have an editor that sits on the pipeline to take those effects and repurpose them. 

Looking for places to share more technology, LucasArts used the example of the pre-visualization tools used on Indiana Jones 4 being used as is their new game engine.  And look for where there are similarities in film vs. game development, for example in how the mythology/universe is visualized.

An interesting takeaway which was rarely discussed elsewhere, and I think is overlooked in the hype surrounding “convergence” or “transmedia”: LucasArts let it slip that remembering the fundamental differences between the media is key for them: film is passive, games are interactive.  Understanding that difference will let you take advantage of the similarities while still best developing for that particular media.  I agree: it’s not about creating the “same” experience for a franchise across the different channels, it’s extending the franchise to surround the participant leveraging every available (and relevant!) channel to that franchise in new and creative ways.  I think that’s a subtle but critical difference.

As far as development goes, no surprise that the #1 misperception of traditional media when it comes to developing games is the amount of time needed to develop the game (they expect it to be much shorter than it really is).  On the creative side, there’s still a significant population (generally older) that don’t “get” games, didn’t grow up with them, and don’t understand that interactivity is central to the core.

There was additional discussion on the pros/cons of licensing vs. retaining IP control.

The Wednesday closing Keynote was with Thomas Tull, Chairman of Legendary Pictures and  Mitch David, CEO Brash Entertainment (and founder of Massive).  To me the most interesting tidbit was Mitch’s Big 3 trends in M&E in general and games in particular: Technology Innovation, Business (model) innovation, creative innovation (new modalities of narrative).  Talk about coming full circle to some of the very things Clive Barker spoke about.  And talk about paralleling IBM’s own research on where innovation is going and what it really means for all industries, not just Media and Entertainment.