An article in BusinessWeek's March 31 issue talks about how Electronic Arts is morphing video games into movies. The authors, Cliff Edwards and Matt Vella, write as if Electronic Arts is the only company suddenly grappling with the convergence of different media models within a single franchise. As we know, this has been going on for a rather long time, whether it's turning game franchises into movies (Doom, the Resident Evil series), vice-versa (Star Wars spawning multiple games including the most recent Star Wars: The Force Unleashed), TV into games (Star Trek Online as the most recent incarnation from the never-dying Star Trek franchise, the upcoming Stargate Worlds from Cheyenne Mountain Entertainment), and let's not even bring up casual games, board games, mobile games all cross-pollinating each other, bold named actors being used as voice-over artists…(deeeeep breath).
Money quote:
"…The old industry formula for success was simple: license a popular movie or sports title and then crank out slightly updated versions of Madden NFL or James Bond year after year. But that approach, developed in large part by EA, isn't working now. Sales are flagging, and gamers are losing interest…"
The missed point is that this is Electronic Arts being caught in its own success of turning a key licensed franchises into ongoing blockbusters. As Hollywood only too well knows, going down the sequel path might lead to good revenues in the short term but wears out the audience pretty quick. This isn't the entire industry - just look at the MMO chart I linked to a few days ago. It's the business press taking the easy story of extrapolating the travails of the 800-pound gorilla as a cypher for the entire industry.
EA's hostile bid for Take-2 Interactive is another interesting angle that could have been covered. If you're quoting John Riccitiello (EA's Chief Executive) as saying "I am just stomping down on the boring sequel idea…", then why didn't the authors question how the takeover bid might be reinforcing EA's old model of buying/extending existing IP vs. directing investments towards new IP projects like Dead Space?
The better story would have asked that question. Or have interviewed any of the attendees at last year's Hollywood and Games conference. Cross-pollination is old news; Star Trek and McDonalds were doing that in the 70s with the Klingon Happy Meal. The new news is how technology and social media are changing how IP from one media is stretched and morphed into new channels that take full advantage of that new media's unique capabilities while still retaining enough elements from the initial creative outlet that it's recognizable to the audience. And how the traditional sequential release windows ("first film, then game, then sequel film, then game…") are turning into simultaneous AND asynchronous multiple experiences that allow a single franchise to engage different audiences they way they want to be engaged. That would have been a far more interesting story to me.
Maybe that's why I liked the book "Convergence Culture" by Henry Jenkins so much.
Here's just one example: what about a look at how content owners are stretching the boundaries of what games really mean? Rather than a rehash of yet another deal to turn a film into a game (or vice versa), why not look at how ABC solidified it's Lost franchise with an Alternate Reality Game like The Lost Experience?