It has now been a few years since I left my previous role at a large publisher, so I finally feel able to get a rather big chip off my shoulder. And the chip in question is the truly horrible way that film studios and games publishers have worked together over the last decade.

I’ve stood by and watched major studios shop around some of the biggest film licenses, trying to find the highest bidder. Invariably they start the process no more than 16 months from launch, well after the film has been written, storyboarded and normally after principal photography has started. And in many cases they still haven’t made a decision with 12 months to go, still trying to pit publishers against each other to get the biggest advance. Once they finally make a decision, there are often less than 12 months to launch.

Given the length of time it takes to test and manufacture the games for a global release, this means the poor development team has less than eight months to get the game to a fully playable ‘alpha’, often on up to six platforms simultaneously. They don't have time to design a proper interactive game, and end up following the film story exactly, shoe-horning each key scene into a linear level.

And it gets worse – the lack of time makes approvals and legals a much bigger problem than normal. Films with major studios often involve a long chain of approvals that can take ages. With a sensible triple-A console schedule (24 months from green light to launch), these delays can be factored in. But the poor studio given eight months to create a PS3 and Xbox 360 game from scratch are being asked to do so with one hand tied behind their back.

I remember pitching for a big license based on an IP which I absolutely loved. We did a great pitch, but due to the ridiculously short time left until the film launch, we proposed releasing a great game in time for the DVD release. The studio went with another publisher who promised the game would be out for the theatrical launch.

Guess what. I watched my favourite license get utterly ruined. The game received an average review score of 37% and sunk without trace. And I’ve seen many games go exactly the same way. No wonder the vast majority of film/game tie-ins are dreadful. Too many studio execs are destroying promising IP with a desperately short-term point of view.

But there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Games like Chronicles of Riddick have shown that a properly designed game can be released separately from the corresponding film and have even more success. Ghostbusters has recently reinvigorated an aging IP by making a quality game, and given it the time it needed. Even Batman: Arkham Asylum, using the hugely successful Batman IP that has spawned countless films, had a proper development timescale since Eidos didn’t need to hit a film release date; instead they have taken a story from the comics as a setting for the game.

At nDreams, we're talking with directors about working with them from early development – so that the game can be designed whilst the film creative process is going on. The games probably won’t follow the story of the films; they are much more likely to run in parallel, be prequels/sequels, or follow the stories of secondary characters from the main film and vice versa. Most importantly, the development time will be enough to create a great game.

I really hope that working with directors may be answer to this sorry tale. Otherwise, the Hollywood nightmare is going to haunt us for a long time to come...

Patrick - 4th August 2009

featureimage: