I have a story in the most recent weekly Variety tied to the release of "Dead Space" about Electronic Arts' approach to developing new intellectual property. Specifically: Why are they making so much of it now? How do they make sure it's good? And why are they so actively licensing it to other media?

I recommend reading the article, of course. But there was a lot more in my interviews with EA Games label president Frank Gibeau and EA Redwood Shores (soon to be re-named) studio GM and "Dead Space" executive producer Glenn Schofield that didn't make the article. Which is exactly why the Cut Scene exists.

So here you go. Rather than a Q-and-A, I'm excerpting some of their most interesting quotes under topic headers, so you can skim and see what interests you.

Some of you may just want to find out if there's any hot news, so here are the things revealed in these interviews that you might not already know, though honestly, I don't think any of this is actually surprising:

-Gibeau says there is a "sequel idea planned" for "Army of Two" and also for "Battlefield: Bad Company." Which is as close to saying there will indeed be an "Army of Two 2" ("Army of Three?" "Army of Two Squared?") and "Bad Company 2" as we'll probably get until the sequels are officially announced.

-Schofield confirms that EA is "talking to movie studios right now" about a "Dead Space" film. Of course, as I'm always preaching in here, most new videogames are talked about in Hollywood as movies. The question is whether a deal gets done. Variety is looking into that right now, rest assured.

-He also says that EA and a publishing partner are "talking about ['Dead Space'] novels" and that they're also looking into the possibility of "Dead Space" toys. (The perfect gift to mess up your favorite 5 year-old's mind this Christmas!)

-Schofield were pretty casual about mentioning that a "Dead Space" sequel is already in the works (though it could of course be cancelled in the unlikely event that the game bombs).

Creating new IP

Gibeau: We found a few years ago that we had a set of problems where EA's reputation became one of just doing sports games, sequels and licenses and the market was reacting to newer properties like "Grand Theft Auto" and "Halo." We were serializing and overiterating. Also, internally, a lot of creative teams wanted to do their own stuff. They were fed up with following somebody else's rules.

That confluence of factors came into play and we said we need to methodically add new IPS every year and start to change the balance of the portfolio away from being overweighted on sports and movie licenses and toward things like "The Sims..."

Schofield: The focus the whole time [on "Dead Space"] has been on quality. It really has. When you're making a new IP, you're paranoid the whole time. You're not "Madden" You're not a license they just spent $20 million on. You are your own thing. If it's not good, you will be cut.

How new IP gets greenlit

Gibeau: I particularly look for what original core innovations are planned to bring to market. At greenlight, I only have a few rules. Typically, I like to look at ideas that work globally. I don’t like ideas that will only sell in

Europe

Ultimately, you look at the creative team. Are they proven? Do you have confidence in them? The decision  is ultimately based on, "Do you have confidence in those people to deliver or not? Business is the last piece. We typically look at R&D against forecast sales and competitive windows... We also bring into the process early on our global pub organization to get their commitment to get behind titles, so the sales guys don’t say, "I never saw this, I don’t believe in it."

[Who makes the final decision?] Ultimately it’s me and I bring our CEO into the process before the greenlight just to kind of get his ideas on the IP. We've got great feedback from him. Ultimately I make the call on whether to proceed. It's based on collaborating with the studio GM. Sometimes we say it's not time to put it in turnaround but it's not quite the right time [to greenlight]. Maybe the team’s missing key components. So you keep four guys on it to iterate a while longer and see where it goes from there.

Is all this new IP intentded to turn into franchises? Can new games compete commercially with big sequels?

Gibeau: If look at the year "Gears of War" shipped the first time, it was one of the best sellers. "Bad Company" has come out and done very well. "Army of Two" sold very well. We've got sequel ideas planned for those. I feel pretty good about that mix right now. "Assassin's Creed," while it was "Prince of Persia" in a different guise and re-imagined, busted into the charts as an original. In any given year we do have sequels. At one point in time those were originals.

Licensing to other media

Schofield: A lot of times you talk to an executive producer and they say "I'm not going to do that." I’m the complete opposite. I said from the start that if that stuff came up, I’d be for it. It's a way to tell more of your story...

We didn’t even put the EA logo on the comics because we wanted them to stand alone. We got some of the best writers and artists. We didn't approach it as a  marketing tool. This is a comic book. It stood alone, which is the same thing we did with the animated feature. We felt all along if they were not going to do game justice, were not the same quality, we were not going to do it.

With Starz [maker of the animated DVD movie "Dead Space: Downfall"], the first meetings were about doing a documentary on the making of a brand new IP. We knew we had one-and-a-half or two years to go and thought it would be cool to do a "making of." But with the cameras around we couldn't get the best out of our people.

So we said what about an animated feature? That would fit in perfectly and they have their Film Roman division...

There was a lot of coordination between the three products -- a lot of talking, a lot of meetings to get it all right. They had bright people writing. They asked questions I wouldn’t have normally had to answer making the game. But because they asked, because it was important to their media, it made our game better. One guy was like, "When they're cutting the planet, how wide and deep is it? How much does that planet weigh?" Some of that information is now sprinkled into the game. It adds more depth to the game.

The story is better because of the influence of the comics and movie. We have sprinkled details for those who see both.

We're talking right now about novels. We don’t have a toy deal yet, but we're but looking into that.

We're talking with movie studios right now. We have been all along. The difference with this is we need to go in and say, "This is not a $10 million movie." Sure somebody could make it, but that's not what we are looking for. It's an expensive movie. By doing this now, we could have a movie that bridges the gap between the two games.

[Asked how much involvement he would have in a movie]

What we’re doing, say, with movie producers is handpicking our producer. We get approval on the scriptwriter, director and those sorts of things. If we get a AAA director and writer, I'm not going to tell them exactly what to do.

Gibeau: Culturally, prior to [CEO] John [Riccitiello] coming back, extensions of our IP into vehicles such as film or books or TV was frowned upon. People thought it was a distraction to making great games and wedon’t engage in that. It's not something people were thinking about because of that bias. Riccitiello flipped that cultural issue on its side and said, "Look, we’re creating world class IPs here. Our fan base would love to experience or learn more about them in linear forms." And he set it up in such a way that everyone thought it would be additive or exciting as opposed to distracting.