We’ll probably get tired of Activision’s chest beating over “Modern Warfare 2” at some point, but for now it remains pretty impressive.

The company says more than 8 million gamers played the game in its first five days.  That’s more than the number of soldiers in the world’s top-five armed forces combined.

Activision has conveniently broken down the numbers for you. According to the publisher, “Modern Warfare 2” has:

* more than twice the number of troops in NATO’s 28 member countries combined (3.9 million active troops in NATO)1
* more than three times the number of troops in the world’s largest army (People’s Liberation Army of China with 2.3 million)
* more than five times the number of active duty military personnel currently serving in the United States Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force combined (1.4 million)
* more than six times the size of India’s Armed Forces (1.3 million)
* more than seven times the size of North Korea’s Korean People’s Army (1.1 million)
* And, eight times the size of personnel in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation (1 million)

“Modern Warfare 2” is proving to be a benevolent king of the video game hill.

The positive effects for Activision and its shareholders are pretty obvious. When you sell $550 million worth of games in five days, everybody’s happy. But Microsoft is seeing a big bump as well.

Last week came word that 2 million people had concurrently logged on to Xbox Live to play the game. Now we’re learning that 2 million XBL users have logged on to Facebook in the first week of the dashboard update.

Now, admittedly, the line between MW2 and Facebook is a little crooked, but a sizable percentage of the XBL members were there to play MW2 – and likely sniffed around the new features while they were there. (The company did not reveal the number of people who had logged on to the Twitter via Live feature.)

Meanwhile, the cash train could keep chugging along, as one analyst – Ben Schachter of Broadpoint AmTech – says Activision will generate at least $100 million - $140 million in gross revenue from the sale of MW2 downloadable content. 

 

When a game can make the launch of “Halo 3” look rather pedestrian, that’s saying something. “Modern Warfare 2” is one of those games.

Activision has released day one revenue of $310 million on sales of 4.7 million copies – IN JUST TWO AREAS. Those numbers only factor in the North American and U.K. markets – granted those are two of the biggest markets for video games, but Central American and rest of Europe are hardly tiny.

Tuesday, meanwhile, was Xbox Live’s busiest day ever, according to Dennis Durkin, chief operating officer of Microsoft’s Interactive Entertainment Business – with over 2 million concurrent players.

One more? Over 10,000 stores held midnight openings when the game went on sale. That’s a lot of sleepy clerks. 

Tuesday’s launch of “Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2” was already being forecast as the entertainment event of the year, but even that may have been underselling things.

ELSPA reports that first-day sales of the game hit 1.23 million copies in the U.K. That’s roughly twice the number that “Grand Theft Auto IV” posted last April. Ben Schachter, an analyst at Broadpoint AmTech (and one of the brightest guys covering this industry) notes that if that 2:1 ratio is equaled in the U.S., it’s possible the game sold over 7 million units in a single day. That would work out to $420 million in revenue – the biggest one-day haul in the entertainment industry’s history.

Following the math, “MW2” could see first week sales of 11.7 million – which would blow out all of the economic models for the game. (Analysts were looking for sales of 12 million or so copies in the entire fourth quarter.)

Looks like the millions Activision spent on marketing the game during the NBA finals and Sunday Night Football have paid off in spades. 

The economy is taking a toll on video game developers once again. Both Raven Software and Maxis have trimmed their employee roster today.

EA has confirmed that it reduced the number of people on the team at “Spore” creator Maxis “in response to business conditions”. It declined to confirm a Joystiq report that “a couple dozen employees” were affected by the layoffs.

Meanwhile, Kotaku reports that Raven Software, makers of the recently released “Wolfenstein” and upcoming “Singularity,” has cut between 30 and 35 employees. Activision confirmed the layoffs, but like EA, declined to confirm the number.

“Wolfenstein” sales have been lackluster, according to retail checks, which may be behind the move at Raven Software, but the Maxis layoffs might indicate some weakness in the “Spore” franchise. EA plans to fully support the game and its offshoots, but any hopes that it might engage a player-base similar in size to “The Sims” audience seem to be dwindling.

Were you one of the people hit by today’s moves? Drop me at line at the address in the upper right corner of the page.

Turns out the rumors were true. Activision Blizzard, as part of its earnings announcement today, announced that the highly anticipated “Starcraft II: Wings of Liberty” has been delayed to 2010.

While the news was widely speculated, it’s still a disappointment to gamers who have been waiting for the series’ next installment for 11 years. Activision’s not happy about the delay either, as it estimates the move will shave $250 million off of the company’s revenue this year.

Developer Blizzard Software is one of the most meticulous game makers in the industry, so the delay will ultimately mean a better game. But it’s yet another high profile title that is stepping out of the 2009 holiday lineup. More and more, it appears that video game publishers have decided to give up on this year and pin their hopes on renewed spending in 2010.

While the delay of “Starcraft II” will hurt Activision’s bottom line, the publisher is still the odds on favorite to rule the sales charts in the last quarter of the year. “Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2” is on schedule and may well turn out to be the year’s best selling game. (Microsoft’s “Halo 3: ODST” could give it a run for its money, depending on how Microsoft decides to market that title. To date, though, the company has taken a curiously low profile approach.)

Like EA’s John Riccitiello yesterday, Activision CEO Bobby Kotick expressed worries about the retail environment as we get into the holiday season, saying he expects the year to be flat to down slightly in America.

“We are very concerned,” he said.

If you’re not familiar with “Starcraft” and are a bit confused as to why a single game delay can be so significant, let me put it this way. Even after so much time has passed since the game’s release, it remains one of the most popular online games in the world. In South Korea, the game is a national obsession, with players and teams participate in televised matches and earn hefty sponsorships.

As we prepare for the E3 madness to begin, there are some interesting nuggets of information floating about. None are necessarily long enough to warrant their own entry, so here, in easy to digest bullet points, are the whispers we’re currently hearing.

• Hope “God of War 3” isn’t on your holiday wish list. Despite widespread assumptions that the game is due this year, word now is that it has been pushed to 2010 (as has the next “Gran Turismo”). We may get official confirmation of this tomorrow at Sony’s press conference. 
• Microsoft’s press event later today will be star-filled. Tony Hawk will be there to demo (big shock here) “Tony Hawk Ride”. The big news is Microsoft’s surprise guest who will kick off the conference. I don’t want to ruin the surprise, but I will say the guest musical in nature – and is likely to “Help!” demo a hotly anticipated game from Harmonix. 
  • Update. Yep, they showed up. Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, Yoko Ono and Olivia Harrison reunited on stage to promote “The Beatles: Rock Band” - but they didn't play the game. “The game is good. The graphics are very good. And we were great!,” joked Starr. “Who would have ever thought we’d end up as androids?” added McCartney  
• From Joystiq comes word that the DLC for “Batman: Arkham Asylum” that will allow PS3 owners to play as the Joker will be free. That’s a nice incentive for players and could give the PS3 version the upper hand when the game comes out later this year. 
• “Starcraft 2” is reportedly looking great – and will be on shelves this year. Activision showed the game to analysts last night, who walked away impressed. Blizzard announced that it hopes to ship the game in calendar 2009, which should be a huge boost to Activision’s bottom line. The beta kicks off this summer.

Sorry for the unexplained delay. I was out of town and didn't get a chance to warn my faithful reader(s) I'd be away. More original reporting and other good stuff coming tomorrow, but here's the big stuff that happened while I was away:

-More rumors that Warner Bros. is one of the bidders for Midway. Wouldn't be surprising at all. The studio would get a lot of IP, and a good brand name, pretty damned cheap, to further its video game ambitions.

-The last remaining in-production Sierra game passed on by Activision Blizzard without a publisher, "Wet," finally found one: Bethesda Softworks.

-Speaking of Bethesda, it landed hot-again Oscar nominee Mickey Rourke to do the voice for its upcoming military shooter "Rogue Warrior."

-Another realistic military shooter, "Six Days in Fallujah," has lost its publisher. Konami chickened out in the face of public controversy and dropped the game. More specifically, the word is that Konami's conservative Japanese executives had no idea what kind of criticism the game might face and quickly told their enthusiastic American subsidiary, which made the deal, to reverse course. Really disappointing news for those of us who would like to see publishers taking risks and pushing the boundaries of the medium and the kind of stories it could tell. And yet more evidence that we're not likely to get that from any of the big Japanese companies.

-Microsoft isn't exactly off to a good start in its efforts to produce original video content for Xbox Live. Writing on his blog, horror director James Gunn, who made a short as part of the "Horror Does Comedy" series the Xbox 360 maker did with Saffran Digital Media to produce its first original video for the service, wrote "Microsoft/XBox was by far the most dreadful, non-talent friendly company I've ever worked for." In short, the company repeatedly censored and cut Gunn's piece (totally rejecting the first one, in fact), acting as if they didn't know what they would get from the maker of "Slither."

This is obviously an attitude and reputation Microsoft is going to have to change since it really does aspirations to be, as Gunn wrote, "their own network, as well as a gaming console, DVR, and way to buy movies."

7 Studios is giving as good as it gets in the ongoing smackdown over "Scratch: The Ultimate DJ."

The game's developer, recently acquired by Activision Blizzard, filed a counter-suit on Wednesday asking for over $1 million in damages and alleging that publisher Genius Products has engaged in a "textbook case of unlawful and unsavory business practices." The Cut Scene obtained a copy.

(The suit is technically being filed by 7 Studios, but the law firm handling it is the same one that has been defending Activision Blizzard in court, so it's certainly not an independent initiative.)

The response comes just a week after Genius and its partner Numark sued Activision Blizzard, 7 Studios, and 7's CEO Lewis Peterson for allegedly trying to delay and interfere with "Scratch" in order to benefit Activision's competing game "DJ Hero."

In a nutshell, 7 Studios' argument is that as a novice video game publisher, DVD distributor Genius was incompetent. Amongst the allegations:

-Genius delayed production because it had trouble getting approvals from Microsoft and Sony to publish on the 360 and PS3 and in fact still doesn't have approval from Sony.

-Genius didn't deliver 7 Studios the music it needed for the game on time. By this January, three months before "Scratch" was supposed to be completed, it had only less than 25% of the tracks.

-The turntable controllers weren't delivered to 7 Studios in time, delaying production by several months. By late 2008, Genius was considering abandoning those pricey accessories, though it ultimately decided against that.

-Due to all those delays, as well as a brief flirtation with making a Wii version, production costs on the game rose. 7 Studios says it started spending more than was budgeted in the initial contract ($5.5 million) to the tune of about $250,000 per month. Genius said it would cover the difference, but it fact only did so for one month (this January) out of six (October-March), leaving 7 $1.25 million in the hole.

-As I previously reported, Genius started approaching other publishers in December. After others passed (including EA, MTV and Ubisoft, though they're not mentioned in the suit), Genius entered talks with Activision, but that deal fell through in March.

-When that didn't work out, in early April, two executives from Numark (manufacturer of the DJ controller, which is now part of a joint venture that owns the game with Genius) allegedly went to dinner with a "Scratch" producer from 7 and tried to recruit him and other co-workers to finish the game for Numark, informing them it would be taken away from 7 shortly.

-Around the same time, Genius tried to terminate its development contract with 7 Studios for cause. First by alleging 7 was insolvent, then, when that was disproved, by saying the developer hadn't delivered materials on time.

Put it all together, and 7 Studios has a succinct story of what it claims Genius Products was trying to do. To quote the complaint:

The promises were made by Genius with the intent to induce 7 Studios to enter into the Developer Agreement, and to continue to develop the game to near completion, at 7 Studios' cost and expense, without adequate support from Genius so that Genius could then take the nearly completed Game and shop it to potential buyers and/or another developer who could complete the game using 7 Studios' substantial, confidential and valuable work product.

 This of course stands in direct contrast to Genius' interpretation of events from its press release announcing its suit:

We believe that Activision and 7 Studios have improperly used confidential information obtained from Genius and 7 Studios to interfere with our efforts to complete our game. In short, we believe that Activision is attempting to sabotage the release of our much anticipated game and prevent it from getting to market prior to the release of "DJ Hero."

So why didn't 7 Studios just return all the code and hardware to Genius and be done with deal after it was bought by Activision? Its story is that it comes down to Genius' attempt to terminate for cause. If it  accepts that the deal was terminated for cause, the developer also has to turn over some proprietary tools it was using to make the game (so another developer can finish it), and give up its rights to royalties.

In a court ruling last week, Genius got an order forcing 7 to turn over the game's source code, even though it included some of the developer's pre-existing tools and technology. Genius also won a restraining order preventing Activision from talking to 7 Studios about "Scratch," but since the publisher's attorney agreed to that order according to a transcript of the hearing, it's not exactly a major victory.

There is one part of the story missing almost entirely from 7 Studios' complaint: Its purchase by Acquisition Activision. Most of the developer's version of events is perfectly plausible given the facts we know: Genius was a novice publisher that has been going through severe financial problems for the past year and it seems tough to believe the game's delays and budget overruns were entirely the fault of 7, an experienced if not exactly AAA developer.

But we still don't have a good explanation of why Activision acquire 7 Studios without having acquired "Scratch," unless it had some desire to interfere with or know more about that game.

Genius executives weren't available to comment. In fact, they have declined to give any interviews, relying only on their publicists to send out press releases whenever they have news to trumpet. Activision Blizzard reps, as well as 7 CEO Lewis Peterson, wouldn't comment either. But they also didn't hire a PR firm and send out their lawsuit to every journalist they could find.

When Activision Blizzard buys a development studio, it generally asks one simple question: Which one of our franchises can these guys work on?

The publisher's business model is based entirely on brands that it "exploits" (sequelizes and spins off) on a regular basis. Once in a while a studio gets to make a new property, like Raven is doing with "Singularity," but most of the time, they're working on a franchise. Infinity Ward has "Modern Warfare," Neversoft took ownership of "Guitar Hero," Vicarious Visions does Wii versions of "Guitar Hero," etc.

So after Activision merged with Vivendi Games last summer and its management took control of the new entity, you know CEO Bobby Kotick and his executive team had only one thought as they perused Vivendi's development studios: Which ones fit a need for one of our franchises?

Meaning no offense to the talent at High Moon Studios and Radical Entertainment, the two of Vivendi's six studios kept on, but it wasn't for their sheer talent alone. Yes, Activision apparently believed enough in Radical's "Prototype," already well into production last year, to finish it up. But in both cases, they have been put to work on their new owner's established franchises (with Radical, of course, potentially going onto a "Prototype" sequel if the first one sells well).

According to several sources, those franchises are "Transformers" for High Moon and "Spider-Man" for Radical. This summer, Activision is releasing its second "Transformers" game tied to a movie, developed by Luxoflux. But CEO Bobby Kotick has already said he wants to turn the shape-shifting robots into an annual franchise. The 2010 non-movie tie-in is being made by High Moon, I have learned.

That's a bit of a surprise, since the obvious franchise for High Moon might have been "James Bond," given that its last game was "The Bourne Conspiracy." And its previous (and first) release was horror action title "Darkwatch." Nonetheless, Activision saw technology it thought could be applied to "Transformers." We'll get to judge the results sometime next year.

As for Radical, its work on "Spider-Man" is more obvious. "Prototype" features an agile hero who jumps and runs along walls in an open world version of New York City. Add web slinging and you've got "Spider-Man" to a tee.

In addition, Activision clearly needs a new developer to help with yearly "Spider-Man" games. Treyarch has previously produced many of them, but it is already making "Call of Duty" and "James Bond" games every other year. It could easily afford to give up the franchise and let Radical share it with Shaba, which worked with Treyarch on 2008's "Spider-Man: Friend or Foe." (I'm not sure which studio is making the "Spider-Man" game expected for this fall, though it's probably not Radical given that it just entered the Activision "family" last summer.)

With that information, it seems like a good time to look at Activision Blizzard's 16 studios and what franchises they're working on. This list is based on publicly available information and my own reporting, but is probably a bit incomplete. And certainly doesn't include any potential new franchises that haven't yet been announced or uncovered.

Beenox: DreamWorks Animation games; "Guitar Hero" compilation "Smash Hits"

Bizarre Creations: "James Bond" games and an original racing title

Blizzard Entertainment: "World of Warcraft"; "Starcraft"; "Diablo"; something new

Budcat: Playstation 2 versions of "Guitar Hero" (which sell surprisingly well)

Freestyle Games: "DJ Hero"

High Moon: "Transformers"

Infinity Ward: "Modern Warfare"

Luxoflux: "Transformers"; DreamWorks Animation titles

Neversoft: Lead "Guitar Hero" developer for PS3 and 360

Radical: "Prototype" and "Spider-Man"

Raven Software: "Singularity," "Wolfenstein," Marvel games like "Wolverine"

Shaba: "Spider-Man"

7 Studios: "Scratch: the Ultimate DJ"; "DJ Hero" (7 was just acquired a few weeks ago and it's in the middle of a lawsuit, so its role is still TBD)

Toys for Bob: DreamWorks Animation games

Treyarch: "Call of Duty"; "James Bond"

Vicarious Visions: Core "Guitar Hero" titles for the Wii; other ports for the DS

(This story previously said I was more confident in the High Moon part than the Radical part. But I have since heard from another source and am equally confident in both halves of my reporting here.)

Turns out there's a lot more backstory to "Scratch: the Ultimate DJ" than Genius Products revealed in its lawsuit this week.

(Update: Genius' request for an immediate restraining order against Activision and 7 Studios was just denied by a judge. However, the suit still continued.)

For one thing, Genius wasn't even the first publisher of the game. "Scratch" has been in the works since early 2007, when Hollywood's dearly departed publisher Brash Entertainment, which went out of business last fall, started working on it with developer 7 Studios. By the summer of 2007, when Brash decided it would focus entirely on games based on movie and TV licenses, it soured on the project. Apparently executives also became concerned about the costs and complex execution of manufacturing and shipping "Scratch'" unique DJ peripheral along with the game.

Genius then bought "Scratch" as part of its move to expand beyond DVD distribution into the video game business (a strategy that has so far resulted in just one release: "Line Rider 2: Unbound"). So when the lawsuit states, "On or about February 26, 2008, Genius entered into a developer agreement with 7 Studios pursuant to which 7 Studios, as the developer, agreed to develop the game for Genius," well, that's pretty misleading. Sure, that may have been when Genius reached an agreement with 7, but it's not when the game started.

Furthermore, the lawsuit's assertion that publishers started to approach Genius with inquiries to buy "Scratch" isn't exactly true either. That may have happened, but it was because Genius was in fact trying to sell the game. By late last year, due in part to higher-than-expected development costs at 7 and also severe financial problems at the DVD distributor that led to a stock market delisting and a sale by previous owner the Weinstein Co. early this year, Genius was looking to get rid of "Scratch."

So when the suit says, "In or about January 2009... Genius received inquiries from a number of notable video game publishers seeking to purchase the Game," that could technically be accurate. But it ignores the primary factor: Genius was inviting those inquiries. They didn't just come out of the blue.

It seems that Genius engaged in talks with several different publishers, including MTV, EA and Ubisoft, but couldn't close a deal with anyone. Then, as the suit indicates, Activision jumped into the mix, partially due to a relationship between Laird Malamed, senior VP at "Guitar Hero" division RedOctane, and 7 Studios CEO Lewis Petersen.

Activision, of course, was interested in "Scratch" due to its similar upcoming "DJ Hero" game (which itself started life at Vivendi Games before that company merged with Activision). It's tough to believe the nation's biggest third party publisher saw the game as a major threat, given that "Scratch" is coming from an inexperienced competitor and doesn't have "Hero" in the title. Nonetheless, it clearly wanted the game, perhaps to integrate parts of it into "DJ Hero" or perhaps to use as a spin-off from or sequel to that franchise in the future.

That's the reason why it decided to buy 7 Studios as well -- so it would have the game and developer. But when Activision and Genius couldn't reach agreement on a deal to buy the franchise, the "DJ Hero" publisher went ahead and bought 7 anyway. That's where things get a bit sketchy and, the sources, I talked to say, where Genius may have something to its case.

Though it had a relationship with Activision from working on budget Wii/DS title "Space Camp," 7 Studios is certainly not a prominent enough developer to be bought purely for the talent. It's only worth something along with "Scratch." So one has to wonder why Activision would go ahead and buy 7 without being sure it could get the game. At best it's a risky move and at worst indicates the "DJ Hero" maker may have been hoping to pressure or interfere with the competing title in some way.

Nonetheless, I understand Activision and Genius were continuing to talk up until when the lawsuit was filed. The fact that Genius not only sued, but aggressively informed the press, indicates that it's now looking to negotiate publicly and get more money than it has so far been offered, either in court-ordered damages or a better sale price.

But Genius is certainly not just an eager little video game publisher that came up with the idea for "Scratch" and then suddenly got attacked by big, mean Activision, as it's trying to portray itself.

Activision's effort to kill the competition to "DJ Hero," its upcoming turntable music game, has earned it a very public lawsuit.

Today Genius Products, the DVD distributor that recently got into the videogame biz, sued Activision Blizzard, along with developer 7 Studios, for allegedly trying to interfere with a contract and misappropriate trade secrets related to its "Scratch: the Ultimate DJ" game in order to benefit Activision's "DJ Hero," which comes out in the fall.

In plain English, here's what Genius and its partner Numark industries, the DJ hardare manufacturer that helped to develop the game's controller, are alleging, according to a copy of the lawsuit

A source at L.A.-based 7 confirmed to the Cut Scene that the development studio has indeed been acquired by Activision. As Genius and Numark allege in their suit, and as I know from previous reporting, Activision was in a very good position to make that deal, since the developer was in severe financial straits after Brash Entertainment went bankrupt and owed 7 $581,000.

There's no doubt that Genius' core allegation about why Activision bought 7 Studios is correct: It  wants to avoid a "Guitar Hero" - "Rock Band" situation on the DJ gaming front. If it couldn't buy the competing title outright, it did the next best thing: Buy the competitors' development talent. That way they're, at the least, not exactly incentivized to do their best work on "Scratch" and also won't be available to work on any sequels or spin-offs.

In fact, they could easily end up working on "DJ Hero." Freestyle Games, which Activision acquired after it picked up the "DJ Hero" series when it merged with Vivendi Games, is making the first game. But if it becomes a big hit, the publisher will surely need more developers to work on spin-offs and sequels. Which means it could keep 7 Studios very busy.

However, all that doesn't mean Genius's suit has any merit. That depends on whether 7 Studios, under Activision's direction, has been violating its contract by witholding its work in order to delay "Scratch's" release, as well as sharing proprietary technology with its new corporate owner.

That's a matter of what the contract says. But Genius CEO Trevor Drinkwater seems pretty confident in his position. "We believe that Activision is attempting to sabotage the release of our much anticipated game and prevent it from getting to market prior to the release of 'DJ Hero,'" he said in a recently issued press release.

Genius and Numark are picking a very public fight with Activision by not only suing, but issuing a press release (and even calling this reporter to make sure I was aware of it). That only happens when all attempts at private discussions have failed and the plaintiff wants to embarass the defendant in public. Which, of course, is often a good strategy with a corporate behometh like Activision Blizzard that, for better or worse, isn't particularly beloved by gamers (even though they love its studios like Infinity Wars and Blizzard).

Genius and Numark are looking for "substantial damages," along with the immediate return of all "Scratch" code and products and an injunction preventing 7 and Activision from using any confidential information they have received.

Activision Blizzard reps haven't yet responded to a request for comment.

Meanwhile, I'm told that work continues on "Scratch," even if the developers have no idea who, if anyone, will release their game.

More updates to come, most likely...

(For those who want to read the entire lawsuit, which Genius's publicists have oh-so-helpfully emailed out to the press, Destructoid has uploaded it here.)

Sometimes, video games based on kids' movies turn their source material into a fun and dynamic package that outdoes gamers' extremely modest expectations and provide a solid experience that can stand on its own. Think "Lego Star Wars," for instance, or "Kung Fu Panda," or Cartoon Networks' "Fusion Fall."

But too often, they return to a pathetic mean. That's what Variety critics Tom Chick found with Activision's latest Dreamworks adaptation, "Monsters vs. Aliens":

There's nothing here that hasn't been done better in numerous other games. When the "God of War"-style button-pressing sequences, in which players just occasionally press buttons while watching a cutscene borrowed from the film, appear, it's clear the developers have run out of ideas.

To its credit, "Monsters vs. Aliens" moves quickly. Though there's not much variety (it's probably not a good idea to have one of the characters regularly comment on how repetitive the game is), and it's chopped into short alternating segments that might distract a child from noticing he or she is essentially replaying the same bits, but with a slightly different background.

The game does make a nod toward replayability, Tom notes, but not in a very good way. Players can earn unlockables via a "DNA strand" that, well, doesn't actually resemble DNA at all (way to educate the youngsters!).

And there are opportunities to replay a level via a "director's commentary," that's actually the same gameplay, but alternate jokes coming out of the characters' mouths. Given that Tom says the jokes weren't too good the first time around, I would hold out high hopes for that. And, really, since when is the "director" of a video game the person who comes up with alternate dialogue? That analogy doesn't even work for films, let alone games.

Full review: Monsters vs. Aliens

Variety reviewer Chris Dahlen ends his excellent review of "Guitar Hero: Metallica" with an unanswered question that lies at the heart of the career mode:

Who am I? Why do I exist? "Guitar Hero: Metallica's" career mode just doesn't know. Sometimes you're Metallica itself -- but you don't rise to the top. You're already and always are stars.

The rest of the time you're an intro band -- called, none too cleverly, 'Tallica Jr. -- seizing the shot to open for their heroes by playing tracks related to or inspired by the titular band.

Two incongrous parts, in other words, with nothing more in common than the fact that they share a virtual digital stage.

Metaphysical befuddlement aside, "Guitar Hero: Metallica" is really solid, Chris argues. There's a good mix of tracks and difficultly levels and it's well made, giving casual or hard core "Metallica" fans exactly the musical experience they'll want:

"Metallica's" material is perfect for a title aimed at players of all skill levels: the songs selected are melodic and accessible, yet technically challenging. Amateurs can hum along to "Enter Sandman," while expert skin-slappers can woodshed the drum part on "Battery." The disc includes fewer, albeit longer, tracks than the main "Guitar Hero" titles, and metalheads are the key demographic, with classics by Thin Lizzy and Bob Seger straying the farthest from headbanging territory.

But even players who would have preferred a "Guitar Hero: Shawn Colvin" will find the gameplay rewarding, as the set-list boasts a good mix of shredders and ballads, portentous rests and finger-breaking solos.

Perhaps the question ultimately is: Isn't all that enough? Does "Guitar Hero: Metallica" really need a coherent narrative? Because they sure haven't figured out how to do it, but otherwise they've got a great game.

Full review: Guitar Hero: Metallic

I hesitate to ascribe any meaning to this comparison, since they're very different activities in very different games with differing time commitments and financial costs. Plus one of these includes two systems and the other is an exclusive to the smaller of the two.

Nonetheless, I couldn't help but find these two recently released statistics fascinating when paired together:

Important? Pointless? I have my biases on the importance of downloadable content and general interest in creating platformer levels, but I'll let you readers decide.

All signs point to Infinity Ward doing its first public reveal of "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2" tonight, most likely at or around the Game Developers' Choice Awards.

I've heard from several sources that some kind of "MW 2" reveal is coming this week. There's buzz here at the show and on Twitter that a reveal of something big will come tonight. There's a crew from Infinity Ward, including their head PR guy, in town. And this website just went up.

The interesting question is: What will it mean to "announce" a game that Activision executives have discussed publicly and Infinity Ward's head PR guy regularly twitters about? The first showing of gameplay footage? A trailer? A release date? Key details unveiled?

It's looking very likely we'll know before the day is through.

And assuming I'm right, the industry folks in attendance and the core gamers keeping track are sure to go crazy, since "Modern Warfare," which has sold well over 10 million units, is the most successful action game of the current videogame generation (and "Call of Duty" overall is the most successful franchise). To call this year's sequel "highly anticipated" would be as much an understatement as calling "Watchmen" "eagerly awaited" amongst comic book readers.

(Does this mean I was wrong to write "No major announcements of sequels we all know are coming [like "Gears of War 2" last year] are expected?" If this counts as an "announcement," then I guess so.)

Update: I was right. Although calling it a "reveal" is using the term generously. It's more like a green hued enigma that puts the "tease" in "teaser trailer." Oh, and "Modern Warfare 2" is coming out in the same early November time frame (Nov. 10 this year) that "Call of Duty" 3, 4, and "World at War" did. Shocking!

With sales and profits recently slowing and future success of the brand critical to the company’s growth, Activision is shaking up its “Guitar Hero” publishing division RedOctane. CEO Bobby Kotick has brought in a heavy hitter to run it: Dan Rosensweig, the former Chief Operating Officer of Yahoo.

Kotick knows Rosensweig from having served on the Yahoo board. The Activision CEO obviously wanted someone he trusts who has a strong business background – even if it’s not in video games -- running things.

When Activision merged with Blizzard, execs identified "Guitar Hero" as one of the three key franchises that would create value, along with "Call of Duty" and "World of Warcraft." So Rosensweig's task isn't just selling video games -- It's maintaining one of the three legs that supports a $13.7 billion company. (No pressure, though)

Rosensweig takes the title of CEO/president of RedOctane from Kai Huang, who formed the company – which Activision presciently bought in 2006 for $100 million – with his brother Charles.

It turns out that RedOctane's former head of publishing Dusty Welch, who used to be “Activision’s guy” at the unit, left in January (an Activision spokesperson said he still works for the company). Rosensweig is not a direct replacement for him, though. Welch used to report to Kai Huang. But Huang, and his brother,  now report to Rosensweig. To put it bluntly,, the founders aren't in charge anymore.

RedOctane's new CEO was Yahoo’s COO from 2002 to 2006, helping successfully steer it out of the dot-com bust, though also leaving behind a tumultuous and troubled company (to what extent, if any, he bears responsibility for Yahoo's struggles in the past two-plus years is obviously well beyond the purview of this post). Before that, he held a number of roles at Ziff Davis, ultimately becoming president of the company and overseeing the merger of ZDNet and CNET. He has been a partner at private equity firm Quadrangle since leaving Yahoo.

I spoke to Rosensweig briefly today about what he brings to the job and where he sees the “Guitar Hero” franchise going, particularly given his strong background in online media.

(The interview was conducted in an airport on my way to GDC, so transcription is not as exact as I would have liked. Apologies for that.)

Ben Fritz: You don’t have a direct background in video games or music. So why do you think you’re the right guy for this job? Why did you take it?

Dan Rosensweig: Frankly there are very few opportunities in the world right now for high growth businesses like this. When I left Yahoo I was not sure I’d see another opportunity like this to work with a big brand that’s taking the world by storm and making people smile.

I think the future of entertainment and the Internet is being built on the strength of great brands like “Guitar Hero.”

BF: Based on that, is it safe to say that you think the Internet will be of increasing importance to the future of “Guitar Hero?” That it’s not just about plastic guitars?

On Friday, Eurogamer reported that a source detailed the seven "Guitar Hero" titles set to come out this year after this month's "Metallica," some of which haven't been announced, setting the Internet abuzz over whether there's really that many games from a single franchise in the works.

And while I can't confirm all of them -- specifically the Van Halen edition and "Band Hero"; the rest of them I know are correct -- the number of titles is just about right. Back in September during a conference call with analysts, Activision Blizzard management said they were planning to double the number of "Guitar Hero" skus in 2009, from 12 to about 24.

If you count the number of skus (each version of a game for a console counting as a sku) -- four each (PS3, PS3, 360 and Wii) for "Metallica," "Greatest Hits," "Van Halen," "Guitar Hero 5," "DJ Hero" and "Band Hero," along with two DS editions -- you get 26. Which means, give or take a sku, Eurogamer is probably dead on.

And don't forget, unless plans have changed, Activision is planning to triple the number of "Guitar Hero" releases for 2010. So if this year's schedule seems excessive, prepare to soon be flabbergasted.

Activision is a publisher that knows, and has come to love, peripherals. After all, they've helped drive the "Guitar Hero" franchise to well over $1 billion in revenue. (Unlike MTV, Activision typically makes money on its music hardware, though it did have some hiccups with "World Tour" drums over the holidays.)

Which is why it makes some sense it's going that route with the next "Tony Hawk" skateboarding game, coming this fall. Rumors that the as-yet-untitled game would use some kind of peripheral started last summer. But two sources who have seen the game first hand have confirmed that it will indeed eschew controllers and rely on a board-like peripheral. I'm told it won't be about precise balance (if you want to do that, just get a real skateboard). Instead it'll be about grabbing and manipulating the board to pull of all the tricks for which "Tony Hawk" games are known. Because the peripheral does a lot more than just measure where players are standing, I'm told it'll be available for the Wii version as well -- it won't just rely on the board that came with "Wii Fit," as EA's "Skate It" did.

In addition, my sources confirmed the wide speculation that developer Robomodo, formed primarily by former EA Chicago employees, is making the game.

Skateboarding games have always relied on complex button combos, Switching the interface to be based entirely (or primarily?) on a peripheral is a pretty radical shift. But after poor sales for 2007's Tony Hawk game, it makes sense that Activision is ready to take that risk. And helps explain why it was willing to put its annual franchise on hold last year.

If it's successful, Activision will have a revitalized new franchise that could stand beside its currently dominant trio of "Guitar Hero," "Call of Duty," and "Warcraft." Just as Activision has done with "Guitar Hero," you can be sure it will release numerous "Tony Hawk" sequels, spin-offs, etc. that all take advantage of the skateboard peripheral. Because if gamers love the board as much as they love plastic guitar controllers, they'll want lots more content to take advantage of it after they make the investment.

Activision is probably uniquely positioned to take this jump, since it has already invested so much in the logistics to get plastic guitar and drum peripherals manufactured in China and shipped around the world. Adding skateboards to that system will give it economies of scale that no other publisher could enjoy --  resulting in the kind of big margins that Activision management demands.

Think the drama over "Brutal Legend" is over? Think again.

It turns out that Activision Blizzard is under the impression it still has publishing rights to the game. And it’s threatening to sue developer Double Fine and new publisher Electronic Arts as a result.

(Some background for anyone who hasn’t followed this whole drama for the past year: Double Fine, developer of the critically acclaimed but underperforming “Psychonauts,” set up “Brutal Legend,” an action game set in the world of heavy metal that stars Jack Black, at Vivendi Games. Then last year Vivendi Games merged with Activision to form Activision Blizzard. The newly merged company, led by Activision execs, declined to pick up a number of Vivendi’s projects, including, it appeared, “Brutal Legend.” Then in December, Electronic Arts announced that it had reached a deal with Double Fine and would release the game next fall.)

Now Activision Blizzard has written a letter to EA (and possibly Double Fine) informing them of its legal concerns. According to two sources familiar with ActiBlizzard’s position, the publisher believes that it was still in negotiations with Double Fine and that the EA deal is invalid.

Does that mean ActiBlizzard wants “Brutal Legend” for itself? Nope. I’ve been told it doesn’t think the game has the potential to be the kind of mega-profitable, “Call of Duty”-size franchise that it looks for these days.

So what does it want? A good guess would be money in exchange for giving up its publishing rights. That is what it received from Atari for “Ghostbusters” and “The Chronicles of Riddick: Dark Athena,” for instance.

Double Fine’s position, however, appears to be that it owns the rights to “Brutal Legend” and that somehow in the merger process, whether because there’s no longer a Vivendi Games or because the original fall 2008 publishing date passed and Activision didn’t express interest in finding a new one, it's allowed to find a new publisher.

An Activision Blizzard rep declined to comment. But EA has responded with its claws bared, giving me this rather pointed response:

Me-ow.

The stream of bad news from the videogame biz is over. Mostly, anyway. Activision Blizzard slightly beat its guidance last quarter, which in the current economic environment (hi EA and THQ) counts as a big win. Hell, not laying anyone off counts as a win these days.

Outlook for 2009 wasn't so hot, however, which sent Activision shares down 4% after-hours.

This morning I spoke to Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick about why his company is performing during the recession and hasn't had to announce big layoffs. He also had some very interesting things to say about some of the challenges "Guitar Hero: World Tour" faced this year, why he thinks they can do even better in 2009, and what two games he thinks will surprise us all. But first, the numbers...

I usually don't like to use non-GAAP accounting (meaning the company can exclude certain costs), but given all the complications of the recent Activision-Vivendi merger, ActiBlizzard has a very fair case to make. And on that basis, Activision Blizzard made $2.3 billion last quarter, slightly ahead of its $2.2 billion guidance, and made a profit of $429 million, or 31 cents per share, again a bit ahead of its guidance of 29 cents per share. (On a GAAP basis, it met revenue guidance and slightly missed its net loss guidance)

For the full year, revenue was $5 billion (assuming Activision and Vivendi Games were combined all year), ahead of the most recent guidance of $4.9 billion and well ahead of the initial estimate executives made when the merger was announced in late 2007 of $4.3 billion."

There's widespread belief amongst business types that Activision Blizzard tends to underestimate its guidance so that it can beat its numbers, but during a recession, exceeding even conservative figures is no small feat.

Nonetheless, investors believe them enough that they're concerned about 2009 guidance. The company is expecting to make $4.7 billion, down from this year -- although it says a full $400 million of that is due to currency fluctuations -- and earnings per share of 61 cents. As Reuters reported, analysts were estimating 2009 revenue of $5.17 billion and EPS of 67 cents. That seems to be what's driving ActiBlizzard shares down a bit.

No surprise that last quarter's performance was driven by Activision Blizzard's three biggest franchises: "Call of Duty," "World of Warcraft" and "Guitar Hero" (although the new "Guitar Hero: World Tour" hasn't sold as well as 2007's "Guitar Hero III"). The company's other games, like "Quantum of Solace" and "Madagascar 2," were definitely not as hot.

And here's what Bobby Kotick had to say:

Ben Fritz: Your numbers were obviously quite strong. So what kind of impact did you see from the recession on your business?

Bobby Kotick: We didn't see much. By every number we had our best year ever. We experienced growth in excess of the market for the fifteenth year. By all measures we had a really great year.

Going into 2009, we're seeing revenue and earnings growth and margin expansion on a constant currency basis. We are taking a conservative view because there's so much economic uncertainty. But our product slate is better than last year. There's a bigger install base of hardware. Our expectation is that the hardware companies, at least a couple of them, are probably going to bring down pricing a bit.

It's a very competitive landscape. One thing that has surprised me is Disney, Time Warner and Viacom are much more committed to this category. When you look at who’s committing a lot of capital and has the potential to be a great success, those are the guys who are in a great position.

BF: It certainly seems like they're rising, whereas your traditional competitors like EA are retrenching and restructuring.

BK: It's a tough thing when you have to try to change the DNA of your culture. That takes a long time.

We did a restructuring when merged the two companies and we did it relatively quickly. That's behind us. That's great because it has the potential to distract you from operating with your best foot forward.

Nintendo has stepped it up and they have a great pipeline. Sony, from what I’m told, has 100 new products in production. Microsoft has more "Halo" and some other great products. I think Disney has done a really great job looking at this business. Viacom, you cant argue with the success of "Rock Band."

BF: Other game companies have been saying that in this economy, sales are even more concentrated in the top sellers. How do you feel about your first Bond game, "Quantum of Solace," and your last DreamWorks game, "Magagascar 2?"

BK: It’s tougher because I don’t think that’s what’s capturing the interest of consumers as much as the titles in the top 10. Licensed IP is much more difficult than it has ever been. In the case of Bond, we knew going in we had a very tight time schedule from the time we signed the deal to the next movie. We had to put a team on a plane the month after we signed  to go to London and work on the set before took it down. Tight timetable.

The benefit now is the new game can release when it's ready [note: Its in development at Bizarre and is expected in 2010]. We put a lot of energy and effort into making the next game something really extraordinary.

BF: Do you want Bond to be an annualized franchise? And do you think you'll stick with DreamWorks after your deal ends in 2010?

BK: Remember we’re a company where 90% of our operating profit comes from owned IP. That's the opposite of most competitors. We're certainly willing to work with proven licensed IP so long as the licensor is delivering on their end -- Delivering assets and a franchise that has enough appeal to be worth using our talented development staff. We'll have to wait and see what future opportunities will be.

BF: Speaking of licenses and annualized franchises, how are you feeling about your Tony Hawk games going into this year [note: 2007's Tony Hawk games performed poorly financially and critically and there was no sequel last year]

BK: Tony Hawk is a great example where we took a year off. We didn’t infuse the last product with the level of innovation needed. So we took a year off and figured out how to capitalize on new features of hardware. What you’ll see is something very different than what anybody has done in any products.

I'll tell you, the products I think are going to stand out far beyond expectation are "DJ Hero" and "Tony Hawk." The products themselves are two of the best we have ever created. There will be a level of popular appeal I don’t think we've seen in any previous products.

BF: How did you feel about this most recent "Guitar Hero?" It did well, but not as well as "Guitar Hero III."

BK: We were not big believers in the band product as being a true mass market opportunity. The guitar [only version of "World Tour] did really well compared to the band products.

But there was a lot more demand than we could supply to in last calendar year. We underestimated what band product demand would be. We still outsold "Rock Band." We have corrected the inventory situation. "World Tour" is now in stock. We really grossly underestimated demand for the Wii version more than anything else."

BF: That's interesting, since I noticed that Wii was your best SKU for "World Tour."

BK: We're really well aligned with the Wii market, but we could have done a better job in forecasting demand. Things were complicated for us, since we didn’t have exp shipping the drums. Costs went up ridiculously because of the surge in fuel prices. Because we hadn’t locked in plastic costs, plastic prices went up and the so the cost of drums went up considerably from our plan. We had record operating profits anyway. I think there's some low hanging fruit this year we can fix. We’re getting more efficient

BF: You said in the earnings press release that your company is "properly sized and resourced." So do you feel confident you won't have to lay people off, like your competitors have?

BK: During the merger we rightsized business [note: most Vivendi Games employees were laid off during the merger]. We're probably different than a lot of companies. It doesn’t matter whether it's a good economy or mediocre -- Our culture of thrift is really oriented toward consistent evaluation toward profitability of projects and teams. If groups or projects did not reach our operating margin objectives, we we eliminated them. So we're in a good position from a resource perspective of having the right ones against opportunities

Tomorrow comes what I think will be the biggest test for how the video game industry is coping with the recession: Activision Blizzard earnings.

There hasn't been any specific evidence to suggest ActiBlizzard hasn't kept performing. The company cautiously affirmed its guidance in November and hasn't warned since that it would miss. During the holiday quarter it saw very strong launches for "Call of Duty: World at War" and "World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King" and solid, if not as good as last year, sales for the latest "Guitar Hero."

If, despite all that, Activision Blizzard doesn't hit its guidance and/or announces significant layoffs, we'll know the industry is in desperate shape. Even the strongest can't survive. I highly doubt it'll beat guidance in the current economic environment, but if ActiBlizzard wasn't hurt too severely, we'll have proof that the pains of EA and THQ are largely self-inflicted and that a well managed company (Activision Blizzard is, undoubtedly, the best managed major public videogame publisher in the U.S. at the moment) can weather the storm.

Looks like there's a second videogame brand, along with Nintendo, that scoffs in the face of a recession: World of Warcraft.

Activision Blizzard put out a press release today to boast about the continued success of its mega-MMO. It seems "Warcraft" has now passed the 11.5 million subscriber mark, just about two months after it hit 11 million. Considering that it took about 9 months to get from 10 million to 11 million, that shows the growth rate is increasing, spurred in large part by "Wrath of the Lich King." Last month's expansion pack has sold 4 million copies total so far, after moving 2.8 million on its first day. 2007's "Burning Crusade," by contrast, sold 3.5 million units in about two months.

Posting an update when "Warcraft" gains another half million subscribers (as opposed to a full million) and another million units after a huge launch is a bit unusual. But not in the current economy. Though Activision hasn't felt the need to warn it won't hit guidance for the current quarter, it seems safe to bet that it'll barely reach it, if at all. "Guitar Hero: World Tour" is selling much less than "Guitar Hero III," after all, and there are no signs that high profile releases like "Quantum of Solace" or "Spider-Man: Web of Shadows" are doing much business. "Call of Duty: World at War" had a very strong launch, but in the current state of things, one has to wonder how even that is selling in December.

Investors seem to have this concern too, since Activision Blizzard stock has plunged along with the rest of the market this fall, down about 40%. Which is probably why CEO Bobby Kotick and co-chairman Brian Kelly recently cancelled plans to sell some stock.

But Blizzard, at a minimum, isn't hurting at all. In the face of a recession, spending $15 per month for unlimited entertainment may be looking like a better deal than ever. It's doing so well, in fact, that Blizzard is hiring, as it emphasized in its press release: "To keep pace with the continued growth of World of Warcraft as       well as development on other Blizzard Entertainment games, the company       is currently hiring for numerous open positions." Take, that EA and your 10% layoffs!

In the face of everything, it's tough to blame Bobby Kotick for wanting the world to know that. Looks like that merger came at just the right time.

Well that took long enough.

I've got a story in today's Daily Variety reporting that "Brutal Legend," the heavy metal action game starring Jack Black, finally has a home: Electronic Arts. EA Partners, to be precise.

The last major game from Sierra left homeless by Activision Blizzard that hadn't found a home will be released by EA next fall. As Cut Scene readers know, developer Double Fine and its reps at CAA have been very close to a deal in the past six months, most notably with MTV late in the summer (details here and here). Once that fell apart, finding a new home took a long time, with previous rights holder Activision Blizzard apparently not making a new deal easy.

But developer Double Fine apparently found a way to extricate itself from Activision Blizzard and retain the full IP rights to "Brutal Legend." EA Partners will be funding development going forward (but isn't reimbursing Activision Blizzard for the money Vivendi previously spent) and handling worldwide distribution and marketing.

And even though CEO John Riccitiello said just on Tuesday that the company is cutting back its slate and being very careful about what it invests in, and even though he said in October that "Brutal Legend" is a "significant creative risk," EA feels "Brutal Legend" is a bet work making, at least with the limited exposure it has through EA Partners (as opposed to just buying and owning it outright).

But rather than me keep explaining it, here's my full interview with EA Partners chief David DeMartini:

Me: EA Partners usually acts as a distributor and marketer for others, like MTV with "Rock Band." Are you putting any money into "Brutal Legend?"

David DeMartini: It's a development and publishing deal. We are funding development... Brutal legend is an IP owned by Double Fine and we're doing publishing and distribution

EA Partner's specific charter is to be the venture organization of EA. We're out there seeking to strike a variety of types of deals with the bet third party developers in the industry.

Out there seeking to strike a variety of types of deals with best third party devs in industry. Harmonix, id, Valve, Epic, Crytek, Grasshopper, and so on. In some cases we fund the entire thing. Some cases partially. Some we just distribute.

Me: That would be like "Rock Band" for MTV?

DD: Yes. The other end of the extreme would be Starbreeze, where we are fully finding those games and publishign and distributing them as well. The other end is pure distribution. Something in the middle might be co-publishing. This is more of a development and publishing deal.

Me: "Brutal Legend" has been "on the market," so to speak, since at least the summer. Have you been interested and in talks the whole time? Or only more recently? How did this come about?

DD:We have a very close relationship with CAA and [games department head] Seamus [Blackley]. He worked with us on some deals like the one with Grasshopper Manufacture and others not yet announced. Since we have that good relationship with them and they represent Double Fine, when the opportunity presented itself, CAA involved us in the discussions.

We're obviously familiar with Double Fine as well as [its president] Tim Schafer. We had the opportunity to look at the property and it took us about 37 seconds to realize what a huge opportunity it was.

Me: A lot of people in the industry liked the game, but were concerned because past Double Fine games that were acclaimed, like "Psychonauts," didn't sell well. EA CEO John Riccitiello even called it a "significant creative risk." Do you think you can do a better job than other publishers have? 

DD: Actually I think Tim might look at some of his creative work and say, "Wow it's hard to make 90-rated games, so why are my 90-rated games not getting out to as many people as I want?" That's part of the reasoning why Tim looked at EA as his publishing distribution partner. We have a long history of taking games that should be in the hands of millions of people and putting them there. Tim's work is at that level.

When we saw this particular IP and the opportunities this game represents based on the focus on open world gameplay, the rock background, the involvement of jack black, the fact that it's action/adventure... Everything associated with this game yells "mega hit" and "mass market."

That's what we look for in these titles. With Tim you always get quality. It's a tremendous confidence boost to have someone who can deliver the goods every time. Tim and his team deliver the goods every time.

The good news is that hard core gamers, who are traditionally the hardest to reach, they love Tim's games. Need to maek srue they recognize this as equally high quality game and get concept tout to mass market.

Me: John Riccitiello said Tuesday that EA is cutting back its slate and focusing only on games with the biggest profit potential. Is "Brutal Legend" being impacted by those changes at all?

DD: This game falls exactly into the words John was saying. The strongest will survive and the most creative mass market ideas. We feel like this falls right into the middle of that category.

Me: Originally "Brutal Legend" was going to come out this fall. Would the game not have been ready if it had stayed at Sierra, or are you using the extra year to add new features? Did you pick the fall release date because that's when teh game will be ready or you think it's the best opportunity?

DD: I believe Double Fine has a really storng reputation for shipping on time. If appropriately supported, Tim and the team would have hit the quality bar in a timely fashion. We evaluated this opportunity and saw it to be huge. So we asked when Tim will get to the greatest level of quality and how long it is going to take us to help make the world aware of the quality of the game.

Fall is the perfect window for a title as epic as this, with star power it has.

Me: And just to be clear, you're distributing it worldwide?

DD: Everythwhere that rocks.

(A few answers moved around and/or trimmed for clarity and brevity. And yes, that really was his reply to the last question.)

Blizzard's new "World of Warcraft" expansion "Wrath of the Lich King" manages to provide experienced players with grand, polished, compelling new content they'll love, while also giving new players good stuff they can enjoy without grinding for hours, reports Variety critic Gus Mastrapa (who kindly and ably pinch hit for us as a "WoW" specialist).

"The Death Knight’s versatility as a damage dealer, armored bruiser, magic user and necromancer will make it quite popular, especially to veteran players who have tried and tired of all the other classes," he says, pointing to the new class that lies at the heart of the expansion.

The content isn't quite as varied as last year's expansion "The Burning Crusade," but "Lich King" makes up for that through sheer grandeur. "Areas feel more sprawling and quests frequently allow players to take to the air atop dragons, airships and player-controlled fighter planes," he notes. "The landscape appears more organic than in the past and new graphical flourishes like real-time shadows add emotional resonance."

As a "Warcraft" virgin, however, I was most intersted in, and impressed by, Gus's description of how the game manages to satisfy the 11 million-plus existing players, while still opening things up for millions more to get addicted:

In the game’s early days, most “World of Warcraft” players experienced major plot points from the periphery only, toiling in obscurity while hardcore devotees earned the glory, witnessed the coolest content and reaped the greatest rewards. “Wrath of the Lich King” continues a recent trend away from that elitism, letting the average punter cross paths with the story’s major players and writing them into several run-ins with Arthas himself as they explore Northrend...

The hardcore, however, are still amply served. An entire new zone, Wintergrasp, is dedicated to massive player-vs.-player battles involving new siege weapons like catapults, steampunk tanks and player-piloted flying machines. Endgame dungeons like the floating necropolis of Naxxramas challenge 10- and 25-player teams with intricate, drawn-out boss battles.

Suffice it to say, it's no surprise "Lich King" sold 2.8 million units its first day and it looks like the "Warcraft" addiction express won't be slowing down soon if Blizzard keeps up this level of quality.

Full review: Wrath of the Lich King

One thing I most certainly don't have right now is the time to invest in a MMO. So opening my brand spanking new shrink wrapped editions of "World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich king Collector's Edition" and "Lord of the Rings Online Collector's Edition" would be a total waste. Especially when there are Cut Scene readers who would probably go crazy for this stuff.

So, it's my Thanksgiving giveaway. First, for those who don't know, here's exactly what you get in each:

-Wrath of the Lich King collector's edition: the game for PC or Mac; behind-the-scenes DVD (developer intervieews; cinematic with commentary, etc.); 208 page "Art of Wrath of the Lich King" book; "World of Warcraft" trading card game starter pack and exclusive cards; Northrend mouse pad; exclusive in-game pet: Frosty, the undead dragon.

-Lord of the Rings Online collector's edition: Original "Shadows of Angmar" game and the "Mines of Moria" expansion pack; 30 days free play; 3 in-game item tokens; "Mines of Moria" cloth map; gold plated replica of "the one ring"; "LOTRO" art and music compilation; starter guide; "and more!" (hey, I'm just reading the back of the box)

Want to win? Leave a comment with the following:

-Which game you want (you can't ask for both, or just "either one")

-Tell me why you want it. Are you a "Warcraft" lover who can't afford "Lich King" right now? Is there a "Lord of the Rings" fanatic in your life who needs an awesome gift? Be sure to make a compelling case for why you deserve it

-Tell me, briefly, why you read the Cut Scene and what your favorite post, or type of posts, have been. There's no wrong answer. "I enjoy laughing at your pathetically bad writing" is even OK. It's just my way of trying to make sure the winners are people who regularly read this blog, not folks who just dropped in for the contest.

I'll pick the winners on Monday based on who followed the rules and made the most compelling case for they they deserve the game.

Just a reminder, you can't win if I know you or if you've won a Cut Scene giveaway before.

Not exactly shocking given "Warcraft's" enormous 11 million subscriber base, but Activision Blizzard still has to be happy that it sold 300,000 more copies than "Burning Crusade" in January of 2007. Especially considering that "Guitar Hero: World Tour" sold less than half of what "Guitar Hero III" did in its first week.

On the other hand, when "Burning Crusade" came out, "Warcraft" had just over 8 million subscribers. Which means a significantly smaller percentage of players bought "Lich King" this year than "Crusade" last year. 25% vs 31%, to be exact.

Assuming it cost about the same amount of money to build "Lich King" as "Burning Crusade," though, that's not much of a problem for Blizzard.

Full story here.

Update: An astute Cut Scene reader points out that much of the game's subscription growth in the past year or two has come in China and Korea, where "Lich King" is not available and won't be offered as a retail box. Which means the lower day one attach rate may not be as meaningful as I indicated.

I'd have to say so. Of course, I'm assuming it is marketing. Somehow I don't see a regular fan out there:
-Pulling this off
-Writing the full title of the recently "Guitar Hero: World Tour" in such big letters at the beginning
-Being inspired by "GH: WT," planning this, and producing it all in the span of three weeks

Nonetheless, I don't really care. It's truly awesome. And I'm probably encouraging Activision's marketing plan by posting the video here for free. They deserve it.

Update: According to Creativity Online (per GameCyte), it was indeed an ad agency, called Droga5, which made this vid. Shocker!

I'm starting to notice a pattern in recent Activision action game releases. First I reviewed "Quantum of Solace" and found it to be a decent action game, but almost directly ripped off of "Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare," with basically just new set pieces and a few gameplay adjustments. Now Variety critic Tom Chick has reviewed "Call of Duty: World at War" and says it's pretty much the same thing.

It's obviously no coincidence both games were developed by Treyarch and both made using the "Call of Duty 4" engine. But lots of games use the same engine and don't look and play almost exactly the same. As Tom wrote to introduce his review:

The fifth entry in Activision's annual "Call of Duty" military franchise may return to its World War II roots and come from a different developer, but virtually everything that's good about it stems directly from last year's "Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare." The impressive graphics, compelling multiplayer and even the basic gunplay in "World at War" are all iterations of "CoD 4," minus that game's character, urgency and relevance. The result is a forgettable, mostly middling shooter that will sell decently, but fall far short of "Modern Warfare's" boffo 10 million-plus units.

Usually as an editor I don't like a review of a new game to reference an older one so much, but in the case of "World at War" it seemed eminently justifable. The multi-player in particular, Tom notes, is almost a note-for-note rip-off from "CoD 4" with only cosmetic changes (packs of guard dogs instead of air strikes, etc.) Of course, multi-player in "Modern Warfare" was (and still is) so good that it's still the best part of "World at War." And as Tom notes, there are a few other cool touches, like a fantastic airplane sequence and the fire effects (though I'm with Tom in doubting that German soldiers really used flamethrowers to defend the Reichstag).

If you're going to copy, you should of course copy from the best, which is why both these games are still pretty good. But given that neither "Quantum of Solace" nor "World at War" have particularly innovative or compelling campaigns, and that the online multi-player community for "Modern Warfare" is still going strong, I think most gamers will have to ask, "Why bother?"

Full review: Call of Duty: World at War

So now Ubisoft has bought former Vivendi Games development studio Massive and its RTS property World in Conflict. Which means the only significant property from Sierra (Vivendi's main gaming label) not yet bought by somebody else is "Brutal Legend." Well, there's also "Leisure Suit Larry," but as I told the one fan who wrote and asked about that, I think it's unlikely any other publishers are interested.

It's kind of ironic, since "Brutal Legend" probably had the most outspoken and excited fan base of any of the former Sierra titles. But devoted fans do not a mass market hit make. So it still remains to be seen whether another publisher will take a chance on Double Fine's next project. The word has been quiet since MTV dropped out in August. Here's an updated list of the rest of the Sierra properties and their new publishers:

-Ghostbusters: Atari
-Chronicles of Riddick: Assault on Dark Athena: Atari
-50 Cent: Blood on the Sand: THQ
-World in Conflict: Ubisoft

There are also a few licenses formerly at Sierra that Activision Blizzard didn't pick up, most notably "Scarface" and the Robert Ludlum estate (primarily the Jason Bourne books) that have reverted back to their owners and are looking for new homes. Though I understand at least one of them may already have a deal done. I just don't know with who.

Our last two videogame reviews at Variety were both Activision-published movie adaptations and they  had one specific quality in common: they didn't remotely capture the film on which they're allegedly based.

One is a mini-game collection and the other's a virtual copy of a hugely popular title with a new skin. I bet you can already guess which is which. But here's some more details anyway:

-"There’s little sense of the source’s plot," in the videogame version of "Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa," according to Variety critic Leigh Alexander, " save for a short intro scene that summarily reintroduces the characters before plunking them down amid a series of disjointed minigames."

Particularly in the story mode, the mini-game progression is "ardous" and at times, surprisingly difficult, Leigh notes. Older players will find the lack of context and the repetition tedious, while the kids at which this game is aimed will find it flat out hard, not to mention lacking in fun. It's especially surprising that the "arcade" mode, where players can pick whatever mini-games they want, doesn't contain many of the best ones from the story mode.

That kind of relates back to my main complaint about "Rock Band 2": Why do developers make us unlock all the good stuff in casual games? We paid you money, just let us have our fun!

Full review: Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa

-If James Bond were Rambo, then the videogame version of "Quantum of Solace" would be perfect, says I. Unfortunately for developer Treyarch, he's not, so dropping him into what's essentially a re-skinned version of "Call of Duty 4" in which he shoots dozens of bad guys until the level arbitrarily ends, then starting again in the next scene from the movie (or a flashback from "Casino Royale") just doesn't cut it.

James Bond is supposed to be a spy. So how about letting him do some spying? Or get into a cool car chase? Or re-live the poker showdown from "Casino Royale?" Those are all gameplay types that have been done before, so I'm mystified and annoyed that Treyarch didn't even try to include them.

Instead, it just used the "Call of Duty 4" engine to make a decent shooter. Which is fine for what it is, but a failure when it comes to actually makes a James Bond videogame. It is interesting that there's online multi-player, since that's so rare for movie-based videogame, but once you realize the multi-player is even more a rip-off of "CoD4" that the campaign, you won't be so impressed.

One thought that occurred to me as I finished this review is that, of course, the universally loved "Goldeneye" is more a shooter than a spy game. Which is true. But, to borrow a phrase, I know "Goldeneye," and "Quantum of Solace" is no "Goldeneye." If "Quantum of Solace" pushed the boundaries of action videogames as much as "Goldeneye" did, I'd be far more forgiving of how much it strays from the source material.

Full review: Quantum of Solace

No, we don't have any sales figures yet, but I think a comparison of Activision's boasting about both games is quite instructive.

The week after launching "Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock" last year, Activision put out a press release with this lede:

Activision, Inc. (NASDAQ:ATVI) announced today that consumer sell through for Guitar Hero(R) III: Legends of Rock(TM) exceeded $115 million within seven days of the game's North American release, making it the largest single product launch in the company's history.

It's more than a week since "Guitar Hero: World Tour" launched and there hasn't been any press release. Here's what Activision publishing president Michael Griffith said on yesterday's earnings call:

The band kit launch quantities are virtually sold out across the channel and even with our manufacturers at full capacity and a continuous flow of supply throughout the quarter, we are likely to not be able to keep up with demand for the band kits this holiday.

Additionally, our retail checks indicate that the Guitar Hero World Tour band kit is outselling its only competitor by a very wide margin. As expected, early consumers are disproportionately interested in the band kit as a result of the drum controller innovation and the addition of the microphone. Our retail and consumer programs focused on the guitar bundle and the standalone software are weighted to the Thanksgiving weekend and holiday gift-giving seasons. The mass market oriented price point for these SKUs and the fact that they can be enjoyed with both our latest guitar controller as well as previously released guitars should make them sought after gifts this holiday.

Translation: the full band kit is selling decently, better than "Rock Band 2" at least (though one would expect that the week it launches). The stand alone game and guitar combo? They're not starting off as hot.

If "World Tour" had beat "Guitar Hero III's" $115 million launch by any significant margin, which shouldn't have been too tough given that the full band kit costs nearly twice as much, it's reasonable to assume that Activision would put out a similarly exuberant press release, or at least boasted about the number somewhat in its earnings call. Since it didn't, I think we can assume this wasn't quite the boffo launch Activision was hoping for.

The fact that it may not be able to keep up with demand doesn't actually tell us how well the game is selling, since that depends entirely on the production capacity. Furthermore, every videogame store I've seen in the past week has had at least some copies of the full band kit in stock. "Virtually sold out" doesn't seem to mean the same thing for "Guitar Hero: World Tour" as it does for the Wii. I can't remember the last time I saw one of Nintendo's consoles sitting on a shelf.

Of course, Griffith is probably right that the more casual market that has loved "Guitar Hero" so much is  more likely to shop around the holidays and be drawn to the less expensive guitar or game-only versions. But with the economy worsening, will people spend $100 for a videogame, or even $60 for sequel mere months after they bought the last "Guitar Hero?" And will the more hardcore audience really buy into the full band kit when "Rock Band 2" is at least as good, if not better?

I doubt "World Tour" will be a flop, but it is certainly launching into a tough market for several reasons. Its fate will be a test of everything from the impact of the economy on videogame sales to mass market consumers' interest in Activision's annual (or even more frequent) sequel strategy to whether "Rock Band" and "Guitar Hero" can healthily co-exist as remarkably similar games.

So far, Activision doesn't seem to have too much to brag about.

I said Wednesday that we'd have a really good insight into how the videogame industry is weathering the economic storm in Activision Blizzard's earning today. The answer? By a thread.

The nation's most successful videogame publisher didn't reduce guidance or announce layoffs today, which is undeniably good news. It's confident it can still perform as it expected when the economy was better on the back of sure-to-be hit titles like "Guitar Hero: World Tour," "Call of Duty: World at War," and "World of Warcraft: Rise of the Lich King." But the normally ebullient and confident Bobby Kotick, CEO of Activision Blizzard, took a decidedly reserved tone with statements like this:

We are reaffirming our full-year outlook, while recognizing our titles still need to perform
well, and there is great uncertainty.

Hard to believe that's the same guy who in July, when Activision Blizzard merged with Vivendi Games, was saying things like, "this transaction marks the beginning of an important new chapter in the history of interactive entertainment."

THQ, as expected, announced layoffs, shuttered studios, slashed its guidance, and said it would focus on "fewer, higher quality titles." Probably a good idea. Full details on both companies performances are in the areticle linked below.

Full story: Activision Blizzard perserveres, THQ dips

I missed out on the midnight sales event for "Quantum of Solace" here in L.A. on Monday, figuring the one night I'd check out all the frothing fans is Thursday for "Gears 2." But, as Joystiq so artfully chronicled, I missed out on a highly amusing night. Demo stations that didn't work, Bond girls in overcoats, and nobody around who actually wanted to buy the game. Here's my favorite part:

We decided to take photos of people buying the game just a few minutes after midnight, but there was no one inside except for Best Buy employees. They had two tables set up near each other, one selling Resistance 2, and the other selling Quantum of Solace and other Bond stuff. The manager came over and asked us, "Is there anyone still outside at the party?" When we told him no he said, "Well, we're supposed to stay open until 1:45am. This doesn't make any sense." It does when people just aren't interested in your game. Of course, maybe the time change got them, and everyone showed up at 1.

I suspect Thursday night's event at Universal Citywalk, complete with Clifford B himself, will be a little more happening. Then again, I've had a bunch of friends e-mailing each other today about the 7-11's and other stores in town that are breaking street and selling the game (much like Tycho at Penny Arcade). So maybe all the hard-core fans will already be playing during tomorrow's midnight countdown.,

We already know things are starting to look a little less rosy for the videogame business after EA announced 6% layoffs last week. I think Wednesday will be the really telling day, however, as both Activision Blizzard and THQ will be reporting their earnings. Assuming Kotaku's reporting today is correct, THQ will be announcing major layoffs, including the closure of five of its 16 studios and layoffs at two more.THQ has been having its own problems for a while, but dramatic cutbacks of that scale suggest that the recession really is impacting the videogame biz.

On Wednesday, THQ reports earnings and we'll find out if things really are as bad as Kotaku is reporting. Even more importantly, on Wednesday we'll hear from Activision Blizzard. It's the financially healthiest of the videogame publishers and is going into the holidays in an incredibly strong position with a "World of Warcraft" expansion coming out, new versions of its uber-successful "Guitar Hero" and "Call of Duty" franchises, and licensed games based on "Madagascar: Back 2 Africa" and "Quantum of Solace," both of which are almost sure to be hits at the box office.

So if ActiBlizzard feels the need to lower its guidance and/or lay off staff, it will be undeniable that the videogame biz can't escape the recession. If it reaffirms guidance and keeps on with business as usual, then that will show that the only thing the recession is really doing to EA and THQ is exacerbating problems that would be slowing them down no matter what.

Sorry for the lack of posting. Between the Beatles and EA layoffs and a major story that I hope we'll be posting tonight, it's been another day of total insanity. But meanwhile, check out our two most revent reviews:

-"When the team behind "Fallout 3" created a vision of Washington, D.C., following nuclear holocaust, it didn't just wreck the buildings, it twisted the American Dream itself," writes Variety critic Chris Dahlen, who says it's likely to be one of the year's biggest hits. "This long-awaited new installment in the cult franchise from publisher-developer Bethesda Softworks continues in the spirit of its predecessors by giving players a massive post-apocalyptic world to explore, exploit and try to save, while shrewdly integrating classic themes like patriotism, tribalism and mankind's capacity to destroy itself...

"In 'Fallout 3, the American Dream is a charred blueprint survivors are struggling to follow. But hope never dies, and the final stretch of the story includes a Strangelovian display of national power that's spectacular, ironic and heartfelt. The player leaves thinking America might just survive this war, right in time to start some new ones."

To give you an idea of how passionate Chris's review is, even our non-videogame playing copy editor told me that reading this made him want to get a console. Read Chris's entire review right here.

-Given how similar the two games are, the only real question about "Guitar Hero: World Tour" is, "Is it better than Rock Band?" It's pretty much a draw, according to my review: "While 'World Tour' beats 'Rock Band' with an innovative music creation and sharing system and a more realistic drum kit, it lags behind in subpar animation and the racket those drums make...

"'Guitar Hero: World Tour's' major innovation is that it brings the rock experience into a studio. The game has a powerful and well-designed music-creation mode where players can compose their own songs by jamming or by using a software program called GHMix to alter tunes note by note. Just as in the real world, jamming is more fun, particularly with the huge variety of effects and instrument types built in. Producing anything worth sharing with the world, of course, is quite hard and GHMix, while useful, is awkward compared with computer programs like Garage Band.

"Players can share their compositions with others via the GHTunes community, through which songs can be uploaded, downloaded, and rated. It's a fantastic idea, though the popular tracks have thus far leaned more toward remixes of the 'Super Mario' and 'Legend of Zelda' theme songs than anything original. Truly talented composers will inevitably be spending their time with real instruments and mixing software."

Hopefully "World Tour" composers will do better than Nintendo theme songs. But for now, that's what's topping the charts. And seriously, those drums are loud. If I want to play "World Tour" at night without waking my wife, I've got to use the "Rock Band 2" drums. Though it is cool how "World Tour" automatically adjusts to a drum set with four pads instead of five.

You can read the whole review here.

As noted in my previous post, it seems almost every near complete Sierra game that Activision Blizzard decided not to publish has a new home. Except one: Brutal Legend.

While doing my reporting on "Chronicles of Riddick: Assault on Dark Athena" and "Ghostbusters" (info here), I checked in on everyone's favorite heavy metal action game starring Jack Black and, well, the news isn't great.

Sources close to the process confirmed that "Brutal Legend" hasn't been set up at a new publisher since, as I reported back in August, negotiations with MTV fell through.

Whatever the exact reasons, it seems that tensions are running high between Double Fine and Activision Blizzard as they try to make a deal with a new publisher.

I spoke to some sources on the Double Fine side and they said the problem isn't that other publishers aren't interested. They say it's that Activision Blizzard has been "an impediment" and that they're "blocking the process."

Now of course everyone has their own agenda in a negotiation and I'm sure Activision Blizzard, which declined to comment, has a very different perspective. But when one side is willing to bad mouth the other, you can be certain of at least one thing: talks are not going well and people are pissed. If they were close to a deal, everyone would keep their mouths shut to keep the process going smoothly.

So, whatever the exact details, it seems that the Double Fine side feels that Activision Blizzard is intentiontally trying to make setting up "Brutal Legend" at a new publisher difficult, if not impossible. Which means things won't be sorted out anytime soon and we probably won't be hearing an announcement about the game's fate, let alone playing it, for a while.

Another former Sierra game dropped by Activision Blizzard has found a home. In tomorrow's Daily Variety, I'm reporting that "Chronicles of Riddick: Assault on Dark Athena" will be published by Atari in the spring (click here for all the details). I'm also confirmed through sources -- though the publisher won't yet confirm -- that "Ghostbusters" will indeed be published by Atari, as Dan Aykroyd previously let slip. Expect it to be released early next summer, timed to the film's 25th anniversary.

Fans might also be interested in more details on "Athena" (for starters, that's a new screenshot on the right). We already knew that developer Starbreeze was remaking the critically acclaimed (though only so-so selling) "Escape from Butcher Bay" for current gen systems along with multi-player. But Atari also confirmed that the game will have an entire new campaign. I spoke with Bill Kispert, head of interactive for Universal, which owns the "Riddick" rights, and he promised even those of us who have played "Butcher Bay" will get our money's worth from "Athena's" new campaign and multi-player.

"Originally it was just a remake, but we started thinking more and felt that wasn't super compelling," he explained. "the new campaign is robust, it's not an extra mission or two. It has a storyline, new characters, new locations, new weapons."

He added that he's really excited about the multi-player too and promises it will give fans "something a little different" than what they're used to in multi-player.

It's my understanding that Infogrames (which essentially is Atari now) president Phil Harrison was particularly excited about "Riddick," knew how great the original game was, and saw the potential in doing a follow-up. And Atari is hoping for more. Along with buying the "Dark Athena" game from Activision Blizzard, it also has licensing rights from Universal for "Riddick" that will let it publish more sequels going forward if this one does well.

It's my understanding Atari has a similar long term deal with Sony Pictures for "Ghostbusters," though I couldn't confirm that.

In both cases, sources told me that Atari paid a flat fee to Activision Blizzard to compensate it for some, but not all, of the development money Sierra spent on the games.

This is a pretty big deal for the reconstituted Atari and it's new management team. They've talked a lot about online gaming, utilizing their library, and distributing games for partners, but these are the first AAA titles they've picked up. Though they hardly have a full sized slate, it shows they're still a player.

So what other former Sierra titles are left? "50 Cent: Blood on the Sand" went to THQ. Early work on "Scarface 2" was scrapped and now rights to the franchise have reverted back to Universal, which is looking for a new licensor. Ditto the Bourne games and the Robert Ludlum estate.

What about "Brutal Legend?" I'll have more on that in a minute.

Full story: Atari gets "Riddick," "Ghostbusters"

According to GamesIndustry, based on an Australian ratings board filing, it looks like THQ has picked up "50 Cent: Blood in the Sand" from Activision Blizzard. It was one of numerous Sierra titles that Activision execs chose not to publish after merging with Vivendi Games.

Assuming it's true, that would make it the first rejected Sierra game to officially find a home. I haven't gotten a definite answer yet, but given that THQ is on the hunt for more adult-oriented titles, loves licenses, and this fits pretty nicely with its "Saints Row" franchise, it wouldn't be too surprising.

Other titles that were kicked to the curb by ActiBlizzard but were far enough along in development that they could easily come out if a new publisher works out a deal include:

-"Ghostbusters." Sony Pictures has said it plans to put it out with a new publisher sometimes in 2009. But no word on who it will be.

-"Brutal Legend." There were rumors it would be picked up by MTV, but I shot those down in August. Now, despite indications a deal would get done quickly, we're still waiting.

-"Chronicles of Riddick: Assault on Dark Athena," Starbreeze's quasi-sequel to 2005's well received "Escape from Butcher Bay." From what I hear, license holder Universal is still working with Activision Blizzard to find a new publisher.

The videogame industry and the music biz are in a very, shall we say, tendentious place. On the one hand there are a huge number of music games on the way (Multiple "Guitar Hero's," "Rock Band 2" and more spin-offs/sequels without a doubt, "Ultimate Band," "Rock Revolution," "Wii Music," etc.), all of which generate royalties for music labels and publishers, not to mention exposure to a huge new audience. (For a good summary, see this Variety article.)

But methinks Activision Blizzard CEO goes a bit far in this statement to the Wall Street Journal (subscription only, excerpted by GameDaily):

We have lots of music to choose from, lots of artists to choose from. A 12-year-old kid has no idea who Steven Tyler is or who Aerosmith is. The bulk of our consumers will tell you they're not purchasing the products based on the songs that are include. They're purchasing based on how fun the songs are to play when they're playing them.

Any intelligent person can see that Kotick is taking an aggressive public stance in essentially letting the music companies know that he's not bending to their demands -- or more specifically the demands of Warner Music Group topper Edgar Bronfman -- to pay more money to use their music. (Sources have made clear to me that the dispute between Bronfman and "music video games" is really just about "Guitar Hero.")

But this assertion is pretty clearly belied by the evidence. If including major bands isn't important for "Guitar Hero," then why is Activision shelling out to get them? Kotick is famously a hard nosed businessman who only spends money when he needs to. Why pay "Aerosmith" millions, and the bands included in "Guitar Hero" tens of thousands each, to get their music if that's not an important factor for consumers buying the game?

Here's a simple test: If Kotick is right, then Activision should release a new game called "Guitar Hero: Unsigned indie bands you've never heard of." There are thousands of decent independent bands that would kill to be on "Guitar Hero" without any payment just for the promotional exposure. So make that game, charge the same price as other versions of "Guitar Hero," and let's see how it sells. Anyone want to take bets on whether it'll beat the "Aerosmith" version?

Kotick also said that the impact of inclusion in "Guitar Hero" on catalog sales can be so dramatic that "you sort of question whether or not, in the case of those kinds of products, you should be paying any money at all and whether it should be the reverse."

Again, I'd be interested to see that plan put into action. Who out there is looking forward to the "Guitar Hero: Bands that were willing to pay us to be included" edition?

Activision Blizzard's analyst day presentation yesterday was over three hours long and I admit I haven't gotten to listen to more than about half an hour so far. Rather than wait for me to have another 2.5 hours free to look for the nuggets of info, here's the relevant news gathered from other reports and analysts who were there:

-There will be a new James Bond game every year going forward. Activision's planning to turn the British spy into one of its trademark annualized franchises. Also, as it does with "Spider-Man," it planning to but out new Bond games regardless of whether there's a new film to tie the game to. Which means it must think its first Bond game, "Quantum of Solace," is pretty good. That game bombing would throw a kink into Activision's plans.

-It's planning to double the number of "Guitar Hero" skus' for next year and triple them by 2010. This year there's a total of four games with 12 sku's that I count (six for Aerosmith, one each for On Tour and Decades, and four for World Tour). So that would mean around 24 versions next year and 36 in '10. If you generously assume a few DS specific titles and that every band/genre related game is on all six available platforms (PS2, PS3, 360, Wii, PC, Mac), you're still probably talking like 4 console games and maybe two or three handhelds next year, with five or six console games in 2010. They can't be thinking that anyone but the most hard core fan will buy every one, but I guess the idea is there are now multiple points of entry to "Guitar Hero" no matter what kind of music you like, what your favorite band is, how you like to play, etc. (MTV News confirms that one of the "Guitar Hero" franchise games coming next year is "DJ Hero," from newly acquired developer Freestyle Games. It was originally being developed for Vivendi Games, which is a nice confluence of events for Activision now that it has merged with that company.)

-The sixth "Call of Duty" is indeed coming from original developer Infinity Ward, but not until 2010. How will we survive through 2009 without a new game? And more importantly, how will Activision survive without one of its biggest franchises? Lots of downloadable content for this year's "Call of Duty: World at War," with exciting new options to pay (more) for it.

-Not that it's news, but in the part I was listening to, ActiBlizzard CEO Bobby Kotick was pointing out that videogames are one of the best values for the entertainment dollar (undoubtedly true) and used as evidence that the typical "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare" player is only spending about 52 cents per hours not counting online play. I frankly don't see how that's possible. At $60 per pop, that's around 120 hours of play. The campaign takes like 15 or so hours to play. I would think he was mistaken and meant with online (I guess it's possible the average "Call of Duty" player has spent 100 hours online, given that a hard core minority has easily spent hundreds and hundreds), but he then made a separate point that including online, it's more like 15 cents per hour. So somehow, in a way I'm not seeing, ActiBlizzard really thinks that stat is true.

I hadn't thought about this before, but it makes perfect sense that Activision Blizzard's clearance sale of all Sierra's assets would work well for Warner Bros. Now that ActiBlizzard is abandoning the F.E.A.R. franchise (it wasn't in that much vaunted list of five surviving franchises), WB was probably able to buy the name, presumably pretty cheap. And so the upcoming "F.E.A.R." sequel being made by Monolith Productions, developer of the original, and published by Monolith's corporate parent WB finally gets the "F.E.A.R." name back. The new name is "F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin." After going through a whole contest to let fans come up with a new "F.E.A.R."-free name for the game when it didn't own the rights, it's nice of Warner Bros. to keep "Project Origin" in there. The game comes out February 10, which is interestingly right about when "Turok" came out last year. Which perhaps makes sense, since based on what I saw at E3, "Project Origin" appears to be, like "Turok," a perfectly solid but not incredibly innovative FPS.

Also of note today, the producer of the "Max Payne" movie has an agreement with 3D Realms to develop a "Duke Nukem" movie, says Kotaku. Now all they need is a take on the movie, a funding source and/or a studio. It's a positive development for "Duke" fans, but not exactly a reason to start lining up at the multiplex in the next five years.

I'll be spending most of the rest of the day playing more "Spore" and "Rock Band 2" to finish those damned reviews, so apologies for light posting...

Remember those awkward lanyards at Penny Arcade Expo advertising "Ghostbusters: the Game," which currently has no publisher or release date after Activision passed on it following the merger with Vivendi?

I was interviewing Penny Arcade business chief Robert Khoo for a story about PAX running this weekend (look for it!) and he noted that Vivendi label Sierra signed up to sponsor the lanyards all the way back in January and sent them, with the Ghostbusters logo, back in June. But it wasn't until two weeks before the show (probably right after ActiBlizzard made its fateful announcement) that Sierra pulled out of displaying "Ghostbuster" (and, I assume, other games, many of which are now cancelled). Awkward!

As Khoo himself said, "We didn't have much of a choice as finding an alternate lanyard provider, so we just ran with it." Of course, one publisher or another is going to put the game out in 2009, according to licensor Sony Pictures, so as Khoo added, "SOMEONE out there is benefiting from it!" Just not the folks who actually paid for it.

I bet Activision Blizzard wishes Sierra didn't waste however many thousands of dollars it spent plastering "Ghostbusters: the Game" on every badge-holding lanyard at Penny Arcade Expo this weekend. Now that the game is without a publisher after ActiBlizz passed on it following its takeover of Sierra (get the whole story here), it's an expensive ad for a videogame with no release date. And you thought the demo's at Comic-Con a week before the game got negged by ActiBlizzard were awkward...

Ever since Activision Blizzard announced it won't be publishing Double Fine's "Brutal Legend," amongst other Sierra games, the word I've heard most about the game's future is "MTV." The cable conglomerate, which publishes "Rock Band" and is developing games with uber-producer Jerry Bruckheimer, seems like a pretty natural publisher for a game about a heavy metal roadie voice by Jack Black. That idea also fits with what I heard from a good industry source who told me "Brutal Legend" was close to a deal with a company that's not a traditional publisher.

However, such a deal is not to be. In a very politic statement, MTV confirmed to me that it won't be publishing "Brutal Legend":

We are big fans of [Double Fine chief] Tim Schafer. We hope the game finds a good home.

That's all they had to say, but my reading of "PR-ese" is that MTV considered publishing "Brutal Legend," talked to Double Fine and its reps, but ultimately decided not to pick the game up and/or couldn't reach a deal.

So where will "Brutal Legend" end up? With MTV out of the picture, I've got no idea for the moment.

Update: Kotaku reports a rumor that EA will publish the game. That doesn't fit with what I previously heard that a non-traditional publisher would be picking up the game, but now that MTV has passed, things do change. However, unlike Kotaku, I don't think the game could be published through EA Partners. Unless Double Fine picks up some new financing, I don't believe it can afford to fund the development costs itself. Somebody probably has to pay back Activision Blizzard for at least a big portion of what Vivendi Games has spend on "Brutal Legend."

While reporting on EA's "Godfather II" yesterday, I started thinking about other games based on great '70s / early '80s movies. There was Majesco's godawful "Jaws Unleashed," there's Warner Bros. forever-in-development "Dirty Harry" (but still not canceled, WB swears), and there was Vivendi's perfectly decent "Grand Theft Auto" knock-off "Scarface: The World is Yours" (remember fondly by many of us for its innovative "balls meter.")

And then I remembered a story from late last year that fell off my radar after the Activision Blizzard merger was announced: "Scarface 2." As I noted when I first reported on the "Ghostbusters" game last year, a sequel to 2006's "Scarface: the World is Yours," which sold over 2.5 million units worldwide, was in the works. A high level source at Vivendi Games confirmed that for me. I don't know whether Radical, which made the first game, was working on it, or how far into production the game got. Obviously not too far, since it was never announced by Sierra and thus couldn't have been scheduled for any earlier than 2009.

But "Scarface" was not on the very short list of Sierra franchises that Activision Blizzard picked up, which means Tony Montana is now without a videogame home. The rights have reverted back to Universal, which will undoubtedly be looking to find another publisher interested in open-world, drug empire building, hip-hop influenced, non-stop-swearing mayhem. Or perhaps, now that it has started producing videogames with "Wanted," the studio could make "Scarface 2" itself.

Rounding out my posts on the trio of high profile Sierra titles that Activision Blizzard decided not to publish is "Brutal Legend" (for "Ghostbusters" and the Bourne games, click here and here, respectively).

My information from reporting today is that developer Double Fine, which owns the rights to its metal rock actioner starring Jack Black and thus doesn't have to just sit back and worry about what Activision Blizzard will do, is very close to sealing a new deal to release the game. I don't know who it will be, but I understand that it may not be a traditional publisher. It could be a more "unique" arrangement. (Sorry to be vague, but even getting this much info was quite a chore.)

Many people I spoke to were worried that other partners might feel the way Activision Blizzard apparently does and not want to take a risk on an original property from a developer whose last game, "Psychonauts," didn't sell well (even if that was largely publisher Majesco's fault and the game got great reviews). A risk is a risk and videogaming is a risk-averse industry. So this is good news for anyone who likes originality.

Of course, closing the deal and then setting up a new marketing plan means that keeping the current release date could be tough. So don't be surprised to see "Brutal Legend" slip into 2009. But the most important fact for gamers psyched about this awesome looking game is that it's not dead. It looks like we'll be playing it within a year.

Just a few hours ago I got on the phone with Jeff Weiner, CEO of Ludlum Entertainment, to talk about the Robert Ludlum estate's plans for its videogame license now that the rights have reverted back following the Activision - Vivendi Games merger. (The Ludlum estate signed a 10 year licensing deal with Vivendi Games back in 2005)

As many people, including me, predicted, Bobby Kotick and his team decided to not keep making Bourne games, most likely because they're too similar to the James Bond games it already has in development. Weiner told me it was a very simple process: "They decided internally after the merger what they wanted to continue publishing and what they didn't. The decision was made. They had the ability to get out of the contract if they wanted to."

But he said his company is "certainly going to stay in the interactive business." Vivendi's first Ludlum game, "The Bourne Conspiracy," got generally good reviews when it was released last month (including from me), though it seems like sales weren't too big out of the game (it didn't make NPD's top 20 for June). Weiner did grant that all the attention taken by the pending merger "certainly impacted the marketing support" that the game got.

So what happens now? Weiner says his company is definitely looking to do a new long-term deal to make more Bourne games. "Videogames are capital intensive and time intensive to develop," he noted. "We don't want to do one-offs."

The question now is whether Ludlum  Entertainment will make a deal with a new publisher or raise money to finance them itself. "We have been approached by financing sources and publishing partners," he told me.

Just as movie studios like Paramount and Universal and Warner are increasingly publishing their own games rather than licensing them out, independent IP owners like Ludlum are now thinking the same thing.

Anyone who publishes future "Bourne" games won't necessarily have to start from scratch. Vivendi-owned developer Radical Entertainment (which Activision Blizzard is keeping, but downsizing) was already developing a new Ludlum-based game called "Treadstone." It's a multi-player online game set in the world of the spy agency that trained Bourne. While production has stopped, a new publisher could possibly revive it.

[Interested in the status of Vivendi's "Ghostbusters" game? Click here. Interested in the status of "Brutal Legend?" Click here.]

By now everybody knows that Activision Blizzard didn't include "Ghostbusters," which was scheduled to come out this fall, on the list of Vivendi games it is planning to publish post-merger.

But beyond a vague statement from a PR rep that the game is "not canceled," there's been no indication yet of what will happen to the "Ghostbusters" game. Since it's so close to completion, surely it won't just be thrown to oblivion and never published, right?

I got some answers today from Sony Pictures, which of course owns the rights to "Ghostbusters" and licensed the IP to Vivendi last year. The studio gave me official word that it is working with Activision Blizzard "to evaluate various options surrounding the release of the 'Ghostbusters' video game." That's obviously vague, but it does contain an important nugget: it wants the game to be released, one way or another.

Sony goes on to state that "this has presented [Sony Pictures Consumer Products] with an opportunity to reevaluate the game release marketing strategy to potentially coincide with the 25th anniversary of the original film in '09."

So the studio's plan now is to get the game released in 2009. But who will publish it? There's no official word yet, but my understanding from further reporting is that Activision Blizzard and Sony are talking to other publishers about picking up the game right now. Given the strength of the brand and the marketing that has already gone into the game, I can't imagine the studio will have any trouble finding multiple interested partners. The only question may be whether that new publisher can reach a deal with Activision Blizzard to pay for the millions already spent on development.

Of course regardless of who releases it, developers Terminal Reality and Red Fly now have an extra year to work on the game. So there's no reason it shouldn't be really good.

[Interested in the status of the Jason Bourne games and Brutal Legend? Click on those names.]

Finally today comes the official list of games from Sierra, the console publishing label of Vivendi Games, that Activision Blizzard (the company formed by Activision's merger with Vivendi Games) will publish. It's keeping exactly five franchises: Crash Bandicoot, Spyro, Ice Age (the Fox animation license), "Prototype" (the upcoming open world action game from Radical Entertainment), and an unannounced project.

What does that mean for all the other games? Activision Blizzard's VP of corporate communication confirmed for me that those five are the only games/franchises it is planning to publish "at this point" and that the company will explore alternative options for all of Sierra's other projects in development. Here are just some of the Sierra games that will now either die or go to other publishers:

-"Brutal Legend"

-"Ghostbusters"

-"50 Cent: Blood on the Sand"

-The Robert Ludlum estate license (There was at least one other Bourne game in the works)

In its announcement today, Activision Blizzard also said that it will "realign" (aka downsize) two of Sierra's development studios, High Moon and Radical, and is "exploring options... including divestiture" for the other two, Massive and Swordfish (meaning it will try to find a buyer and if it can't, shut them down). It's considering selling the Sierra Online and Vivendi Games Mobile businesses too.

This is, by and large, not surprising. I have previously reported (both with on-the-record statements and, earlier, off-the-record reporting) that many Sierra projects and studios were likely to be on the chopping block, since Activision execs are completely in control of the merged company's publishing business and imposing their judgment on what stays and what goes. Activision CEO Bobby Kotick is obsessed with wholly owned franchises and valuable licenses. It's entire portfolio consists primarily of a few big franchises it owns ("Call of Duty," "Guitar Hero," now "World of Warcraft") and some big licenses ("Spider-Man," Tony Hawk, DreamWorks Animation, "Transformers," and now James Bond).

So it makes sense that it would hold onto the few well known franchise characters Sierra has, Crash and Spyro, the one big license, "Ice Age," and place a calculated risk on "Prototype" and one other game.

As much as I admire developer Double Fine, the fact that it doesn't have a great commercial record and that "Brutal Legend" isn't quite mainstream fare made me think it wouldn't be Activision's cup of tea. Not to mention that my understanding of the developer's deal with Vivendi was that it held onto the rights, which isn't Bobby Kotick's preferred way of doing business.

I'm also not incredibly surprised about the Ludlum estate, since Jason Bourne and his other books are espionage/action titles would conflict with the James Bond license that Activision already has. Plus, all indications I have are that "The Bourne Conspiracy," the first game to result from Vivendi's 10 year Ludlum license, didn't sell great. As for "50 Cent," the first game only sold fairly well and was critically panned and I don't think anybody was exactly drooling for the sequel.

I am surprised about "Ghostbusters," though. And not only because i inaccurately predicted that its presence at Comic-Con meant it would be coming out. Here we've got a game based on a very well known license that doesn't conflict with anything else on Activision's slate and it's far enough along that it's scheduled to come out this fall. I always thought this was a brilliant get for Vivendi and it seems like the kind of thing Activision would eat up. With development almost done, why not give it a shot? It doesn't make intuitive sense to me (unless the game really sucks).

I'd be surprised if Sony Pictures isn't able to sell the "Ghostbusters" license somewhere else and get the
game in development by Terminal Reality released by someone. I'd also bet that some publisher is going to want the critical hosannas, and possibility of a new franchise, that comes from picking up "Brutal Legend." Again, here's a game that's set to come out this fall and at least a portion of the gamer audience is excited for. We'll probably see it come out one way or another. As for the Ludlum games? Former Vivendi Games CEO (now Activision Blizzard vice chairman) Bruce Hack told me at the time he made the deal he thought Robert Ludlum could be the next Tom Clancy in the videogame world. Now we'll see if any other publishers agree.

I already have calls out to try and find out more about the future of these projects and developers and will hopefully have more reporting to share soon.