The Cut Scene - Video Game Blog by Variety

Boom Blox disappointing sales

Here's some slightly old news from GameDaily that I just came across, but it's really disappointing to discover the Electronics Arts' awesome "Boom Blox," which I think is a candidate for best game of the year so far (my review here), sold only 60,000 units in the U.S. during its first few weeks on sale.

Here's an example of a game tailor-made for the most popular console on the market that, in my opinion, is accessible to casual players and offers depth for experienced players, but apparently didn't appeal much to either. Did the cartoony aspects turn off the latter group and the newness turn off the former? Was it just not marketed well? Should creator Steven Spielberg have been out there pumping it more (he certainly didn't have a big presence publicity wise that I saw)?

Whatever the reason, I hope EA can give it another push around the holidays. Because there certainly weren't problems here quality wise. "Boom Blox" is easily better than many of Nintendo's first party best sellers for the system. There's got to be a way to sell an innovative game like "Boom Blox" to the millions of people with  a Wii.

"Godfather" game lawsuit, "Gears" director, and other news from last week

I'm back and catching up. Here's some of the big videogame news last week that I missed...

-Mario Puzo's grandson is suing Paramount to get a cut of the profits from the "Godfather" game.

-"Underworld" director Len Wiseman is now attached to direct "Gears of War" at New Line. This is good news, at least for those who want to see the "Gears" movie happen, since once New Line was downsized and folded into Warner Bros, there was reason to worry whether the project would survive. Apparently it is and by attaching a fairly big director, the new New Line is signalling it's still a priority.

-After the rather dismal showing exhibitor- and fan-wise at last year's E for All, IDG had some good news by announcing that Microsoft has signed on. With "Gears of War 2" coming this holiday season, that'll be at least one really big draw for gamers. And it's probably the reason why the show's October timing works well for Microsoft.

-EA's bid for Take-Two got extended for a fourth time and the latter company has finally reached a deal to turn over all the material the FTC wants to investigate the proposed agreement. And Take-Two chairman Strauss Zelnick continues to be uninterested. What exactly does EA think is the endgame in all this? Fascinating.

-Longtime EALA chief Neil Young, who has recently been heading up the mysterious new Blueprint group focused on developing new content in new ways, has left EA to work at his own company. I had been hearing he was unhappy and trying to land a new job for the past few months. Company vet Louis Castle is taking over Blueprint, which is in charge of the Steven Spielberg games, amongst other things.

Son of 'Godfather' creator files suit

The son of "The Godfather" creator Mario Puzo sued Paramount Pictures on Wednesday, claiming the studio failed to pay royalties from a 2006 video game based on the book and movie characters.
Anthony Puzo of New York claims in a court filing that he represents his father's estate and is seeking more than $1 million in damages for breach of contract.

The suit seeks damages for a game created by Electronic Arts, which was not named in the lawsuit that prominently features elements of the film.

A Paramount spokeswoman declined to comment on the lawsuit.

Mario Puzo died in 1999. Seven years earlier he entered into an agreement with Paramount to receive a "significant share" of the revenues from any audio or visual products that included elements of "The Godfather" films, according to the lawsuit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court.

The agreement was made, the suit claims, because Puzo was a "young, relatively unknown author, struggling to support his family" when Paramount approached him about licensing the "The Godfather" and bought the rights for "an extremely low price." 

-- Associated Press

Electronic Arts can't do anything right in the past week

With its stock down 11% in four days, it's safe to say investors aren't too happy with what they've been seeing at EA in the past week.

After Tuesday's earnings, the combination of red ink despite 19% revenue growth for the fiscal year; soft earnings projections for the next fiscal year despite predicted revenue growth of at least 33%; and the announcement that there will be no more quarterly guidance soured investors a bit.

As Cowen & Co. analyst Doug Creutz wrote in a note, according to MarketWatch, "We remain concerned that EA's guidance reflects continued pressure on margins, implying slow progress in aligning the company's cost structure."

In the long run, I find it hard to believe how dropping quarterly earnings will impact investors much. After all there are always analysts to provide estimates for quarterly performance. And EA has a good argument that the uncertainty of release dates in the videogame biz makes the whole process a bit pointless.

Of course, it's hard to separate out how much of the stock drop is investors demanding more certainty and how much is just that they want to see more profit in the past and future. But neither issue seems to be pleasing them much.

Today's news that EA is extending its hostile bid for Take-Two yet again didn't do much to inspire Wall Street, as the stock fell another 2%. Given that Take-Two stock is actually trading higher than EA's $25.74 per share bid, it's no surprise only 8% of shareholders have signed up for the tender offer. EA staying in this race is a bit like Hillary Clinton staying in it -- only a complete implosion by the opposition could result in a victory.

However, it may just be a side show at this point. Take-Two chairman Strauss Zelnick confirmed today that his company has finally begun "formal discussions" with "interested parties," and I can report with certainty that EA is one of those parties. Whether the buyer is EA, a traditional media conglomerate or somebody else, there's a good chance that Take-Two Interactive won't live to see 2009.

Sam Houser signals that he's cool with EA

It can't be a coincidence that Sam Houser is talking to the Wall Street Journal today about Electronic Arts.

With EA's bid for Take-Two expiring on Friday, Houser is making it pretty clear -- as far as he could  given the circumstances and his reputation -- that he'd have no problem with the deal going through. This is the key part of the story, as far as I can tell:

If EA succeeds in acquiring Take-Two, some analysts believe EA's star developers might demand a bigger share of game proceeds.

Another possible kink: Rockstar's history of autonomy. If EA ends up with Take-Two, Mr. Houser says it's unlikely that he would go so far as to seek EA's approval for game content. Still, he calls Mr. Riccitiello "the real deal" and sees some appeal in an EA alliance, which he says would make Rockstar a "much smaller fish in much bigger pond."

"I'm not someone who has any kind of problem with that," says Mr. Houser, who says EA turned him down for a job in the late 1990s.

As any reporter knows, business executives only talk when they have a good reason (or at least a reason they think is good). Sometimes it's as simple as wanting to publicize a product or themselves. Sometimes they're trying to raise their own profile or that of their company. Sometimes they're looking to push ongoing negotiations in a certain direction. I certainly know most sources don't talk to me out of the kindness of their hearts.

So when Rockstar chief Sam Houser goes on the record several weeks after "GTA IV" launches, but just a few days before Take-Two shareholders have to decide whether to accept EA's $26 per-share offer, and has nice things to say about John Riccitiello, he's telling the world that he's cool with this deal, if not outright endorsing it.

His actual quote may be very mild, but it's his decision to talk right now that speaks volumes. He also speaks about Rockstar's reputation for independence, and the story goes into the label's "bad boy" reputation, which to me is a symbol to investors that Rockstar doesn't intend to change one iota under EA, which is to say they intend to keep making hugely successful "GTA" games just like they always have.

The only question is, what does Strauss Zelnick think of it? The fact that Take-Two COO Gary Dale (who formerly worked with Rockstar) was allowed to talk on the record means that Zelnick must have not fought against the story, at a minimum (Rockstar does have its own very independent PR strategy).

So is Zelnick signaling that he's softening on his resistance to the deal at all now that "GTA IV" is out and a big hit? Will Houser's signal that he and his Rockstar team will be just fine under EA motivate any more Take-Two shareholders to sell? We'll find out by Friday.

PS Too bad the Housers remain so resistant to having images of themselves in public. I would have loved to see one of those classic WSJ sketches of Sam the way he's described: "[sporting] a scruffy beard that stretches to the top of his chest."

Boom Blox: the Wii's best game that's truly a Wii game

When I turn on my DVR, I often notice that  the shows I know are the best ones on there are not always the ones I actually watch as soon as they're available. "The Wire," "Mad Men," "30 Rock"... these are fantastic shows I know I'll appreciate watching. But "South Park," "The Amazing Race," "Big Bang Theory"... these are the shows I usually turn on as soon as they show up because they're always fun and sometimes that's just what I want.

So it was this past week when I got my hands on "Boom Blox." I had assumed I'd put in enough time to do my review, but intersperse it with some heavy doses of "Grand Theft Auto IV." But while "GTA IV" is a great game, the fact is that once I got my hands on "Boom Blox," I always wanted to play it first. Like a good comedy or reality show, it' s a lot less of a commitment than something that's more traditionally "high quality" like "GTA." I can play it for five minutes or an hour, I discovered, and it's always a good time.

That's a long way of getting around to the fact that I just published a rave review of "Boom Blox" in today's Daily Variety. I'm not the biggest fan of many "casual games" or many popular Wii games, but "Boom Blox" easily tops the list in both categories. It's innovative, it's deep, and it's engaging without ever requiring you to commit a significant amount of time. I spent many a long night in the past week trying to get gold on every single puzzle, so much so that eventually I realized I had to stop and move on so I could play the dozens of different modes I needed to get through for a thorough review.

As I wrote, it's "the first great game for the Wii that wouldn’t be possible on any other system." That doesn't mean there haven't been other great games for the console. But the other Wii games people have loved -- "Super Mario Galaxy," "Zelda: Twilight Princess," "Super Smash Bros. Brawl," even my personal favorite "No More Heroes" -- all would have worked fine on a Xbox 360, PS3, or, let's be honest, GameCube. "Boom Blox's" interactive puzzles just wouldn't be the same if you had to use a thumbstick. The Wii-mote as extension of the player's hand is a key and integral part of the experience. For all those who have whined, with some justification, that no game has really taken advantage of what the Wii has to offer, "Boom Blox" is the solution.

Here's the intro to my review:

For his first title under his three-game partnership with Electronic Arts, the obvious assumption might be that Steven Spielberg would draw on his expertise as a visual storyteller. But the helmer went the exact opposite direction with “Boom Blox,” a charming, brain-busting and incredibly addictive game that almost completely eschews story to focus on using the Nintendo Wii’s motion-sensing controller as an puzzle-solving tool. “Boom Blox” is the first great game for the Wii that wouldn’t be possible on any other system and should prove a hit with auds young and old.

And in the interest of fairness, here's the one real problem I had with the game, which is quite possibly more Nintendo's fault than EA's:

“Boom Blox” also includes a robust level editor that lets players design new puzzles or edit the pre-made ones with all the same tools that the game designers had. It’s a bit persnickety -- making levels would surely be easier on a PC than with the Wii-mote -- but incredibly engaging for those with a creative bent. It’s only disappointing that there’s no easy way to share the results. Though it’s possible to send new levels to a friend, “Boom Blox” desperately cries out for an online community where players can rate each other’s creations and download the best.

If "Boom Blox" only had the equivalent of "Halo 3's" file share and Bungie.net, it might just be my favorite game of the year. Ah well, maybe next time.

For now, read the whole review right here.

EA's catfight with Hollywood escalates

Looks like Electronic Arts CEO John Riccitiello's cocky comments about Hollywood needing him more than he needs Hollywood aren't the only strident words toward traditional showbiz coming from EA this week. Check out the headline on this new press release:

The Blockbuster Entertainment Experience of the Summer Isn't at the Movies... Battlefield: Bad Company Ships on June 23

Of course press releases are always full of hyperbole and it would be a bit over-the-top to really analyze whether "Battlefield: Bad Company" is going to be the "blockbuster entertainment experience of the summer" by any quantitative measure.

But still, when it comes to relations with Hollywood, EA seems to really have the claws out this week.

Whatchoo talkin' bout, John Riccitiello?

Lots of people are talking about Electronic Arts CEO John Riccitiello's comments in the Financial Times today that are pretty confident/cocky about the status of videogames as opposed to movies and TV. They're also, I think, misguided if not totally wrong:

"The buzz in Hollywood, which I heard from some Hollywood folks . . . is people are worried whether Iron Man the movie is going to get killed by Grand Theft Auto the game," says the chief executive of Electronic Arts, the world's biggest video game publisher.

"I don't think I've ever heard of that before."

The 48-year-old believes this reversal of fortunes represents a big change rather than a blip: "There is more interest today from Hollywood to make movies out of our games than there is interest in our industry to make games out of their movies. There's a big reset happening now."

As to the first statement, it's undeniably true that people in Hollywood are asking to what extent the "Grand Theft Auto IV" launch is going to impact other media, including the opening of "Iron Man." I'll be writing a story about that as part of a "GTA IV" package coming soon. If it's the first time Riccitiello has heard talk like that, though, he wasn't listening too closely when "Halo 3" came out last year during TV premiere week, to take just one other example that had people in this town buzzing.

More importantly, however, that second statement is just not supported by the facts, I think. Sure, recently we've seen  "Resident Evil," "Doom," "Silent Hill," and there are projects like "Gears of War," "World of Warcraft," and EA's own "Dead Space." And a few big games like "Bioshock" and "Assassin's Creed" are, I hear, on Hollywood's radar.

But let's compare that to just the past six months of games based on movies or TV shows... "Lost," "Jumper," "The Spiderwick Chronicles," "Alvin and the Chipmunks," "The Golden Compass," "Pirates of the Caribbean Online," "Beowulf," "Bee Movie Game," various "High School Musical" games, "The Simpsons," an endless array of "Spider-Man" and "Star Wars" and "Lord of the Rings" games... Need I go on?

Just as illustrative: This summer there will be videogames based on movies like "Prince Caspian," "Kung Fu Panda," "Speed Racer," "Iron Man," "The Incredible Hulk," "Wall*E," "Space Chimps," and "Indiana Jones" (well, a Lego version of it anyway). How many movies based on video games? Ummmm... Zero.

It is true that Hollywood's becoming more and more interested in adapting videogame properties, though it has yet to do so really succesfully. But there's no evidence I can see that videogames are becoming less interested in adapting big Hollywood properties -- even at Riccitiello's own EA, home of "Lord of the Rings," "Harry Potter," "The Simpsons," and the Steven Spielberg deal.

So, something of a change in momentum? Sure. A "big reset?" I don't think so.

"Dead Space: the Event"... Film Roman's president on the upcoming animated movie based on EA's new game

As most Cut Scene readers probably know already, Starz Media recently signed a pretty unique deal with EA to produce an animated TV/direct-to-dvd film tied into this fall's new sci-fi/horror game "Dead Space." We've seen lots of movies based on videogames before, of course, but usually they come out after the game's a hit. This is the first I know of that is being done "on spec" in order to be released along with the game. Starz is basically banking that EA really does have a hit franchise on its hands.

Since this deal is right where The Cut Scene lives (not physically, but philosophically -- you know what I mean), I figured you would all want to know more about it. So I got on the phone with Scott Greenberg, president of Starz-owned Film Roman, which is producing the "Dead Space" movie, to talk more about it:

The Cut Scene: How did this deal come about? Who approached who? Why did you find it interesting?

Scott Greenberg:  It got started a little over two years ago when I reached out to EA. We were looking for new sources of ideas. I believe and we at Film Roman felt that videogames -- the way comic books have become a source of stories in the past years -- games have the same influence. They're another great source to tap into.

But it had to be the right way to do it. I worked closely with two guys in EA's business affairs group. We got to know the different games. We had to find right product to start off. They want to get the motor going on original IP. They are the best at games we feel we're the best at animation. So we figured it would be a good match.

"Dead Space" is something they told us about from the get go. We started developing a film with them over a year ago as a prequel. I would go with them to every studio and meet people, see what games they have. Some don’t make sense as movies. There are a couple of others we have in development more as series for kids.

We really wanted to figure out how to develop together. They do their story and we do ours. Somebody have great experience playing game and also a great experience watching it for  more background. There will be enough links so gamers can enjoy it, but at the same time the film stands alone if you don't play the games. 

We had time to get to know each other and built trust. "Dead Space" is a game that's at the right place with the timing and we just worked closely to start develop script with their characters. It's a great one to launch off of. Then we'll do more hopefully

TCS: How did you come up with the story for the film? How much were they involved with it?

SG: They have a very detailed bible. It's basically "'Alien' meets 'Doom' in space." To get there, though, there's a whole mythology they built behind it. In the game there are planets with  markings that unleash holy hell. We said, "Is there a parallel story?" There was some mutual brainstorming. We said it would be really interesting to tell a prequel story. Where the movie ends, the game picks right up.

We found a bunch of writers who they met and interviewed. Together we picked Jimmy Palmiotti, who writes comic books. As we started doing our story, the development of the game was always evolving. That’s cool for us. As they're producing sound effects we're using stuff they have. We have their world and their designs. That's a huge jump start to take their assets. We had a meeting two weeks ago with their producer and our director going over some scripts storyboards.

On the marketing side, these guys are the best marketers out there. They're working closely with our sales people. This will be an event. Like a motion picture release. They're building a brand and we're coordinating that as we approach TV partners in the U.S. and worldwide. It will be a tie-in to the release of game. The whole thing will come out like a big "Dead Space" event. That’s exciting to me because it provides exposure for both sides. We'll help drive game sales and they'll help drive TV and  homevideo.

TCS: How will the windows work? What will the timing be from the TV debut to homevideo, or vice-versa?

SG: That's still being worked out. The goal right now is to release it on homevideo day-and-date with the game around Halloween. We'd premiere the movie on TV in mid-late September or early October. So it would be a short window. But it depends on the needs and wants of our partners. That's being worked out right now.

TCS: What would the rating be, since the game looks like it will be an M?

SG: On DVD we might be able to push it (to an R). The TV version has to be able to play in prime time cable.

TCS: Will the film be CGI ?

SG: There will be CG backgrounds. CG vehicles and CG props from the games. So the world is CG, they we are animating the characters and other things we insert in 2-D.

TCS: Is Starz fully financing the film? Is EA involved with that at all?

SG: I don’t want to comment on the deal terms. But it's a beneficial relationship for everybody.

TCS: Will you use the same voice actors as the game?

SG: Yes. And we are involved in the voice casting.

TCS: Might you sell the game and movie together as one package?

SG: Possibly. Everything’s on the table. Everybody is looking for the best way to market this.  Co-packaging is a possibility, but nothing is planned as of yet.

TCS: What's your overall goal for your relationship with EA?

SG: I want to do a lot of things with them. I hope this is the first of many. In my view, it's a long term relationship. I hope we can do more event movies. We're talking about animated series for kids. This could also move into the live action space for other parts of Starz. EA has a mandate to build properties and expand into the traditional entertainment world. We think it's smart to be in that space and we want to be there with them.

But we're not in business with them to sell games. We're not a marketing company for them. We're here to make great entertainment of our own.

[Interview edited for length, grammar, etc.]

Viacom and EA disagree about how many units Rock Band sold

Viacom's additional $208.7 million payment to Harmonix, on top of the initial $175 million, is quite extraordinary. That's a pretty sweet deal for Alex Rigopulos et al (not that they don't deserve it. And it's definitely a sign that MTV expects big things out of the developer beyond a long life for "Rock Band." But others have covered this issue pretty well, especially Newsweek's Level Up, so I'll direct you to them for a more thorough analysis.

However as I was researching Viacom's 10-K (its annual report to the SEC) to check the numbers myself, I noticed this interesting statement: "Harmonix’s latest game is Rock Band, which as of December 31, 2007 had sold over 1.1 million bundles since its launch on November 20, 2007." That struck me as curious, since I remembered something different when I covered Electronic Arts earnings in late January. So I checked EA's latest earnings report and sure enough: "The critically-acclaimed Rock Band had a strong North American launch on the Xbox 360, PLAYSTATION3 and PlayStation 2 -- selling 1.5 million copies."

I suspect there's a simple explanation behind this, since neither of these companies would be crazy enough to dissemble in a public statement and open themselves up to liability from angry shareholders (especially EA, since I don't think Viacom would be purposefully understating "Rock Band" sales.)

Still, 400,000 is a big difference. Which leaves us all wondering... just how many units did "Rock Band" really sell last year?

Kane and Lynch sold 1.4 million units -- A point for EA's John Riccitiello

Buried in its restructuring statement was this bit of data from Sci/Eidos: Kane and Lynch sold 1.4 million units.

That's a solid, though far from spectacular, worldwide performance for a game that got very mixed reviews (though I personally thought it was great).

However Sci said it could have done much better. "We believe it could have sold more had we optimised the opportunity," it said in a statement.

Given Sci/Eidos' size, of course, it can only "optimize the opportunity" so far. Which was exactly one of EA CEO John Riccitiello's arguments last week as he explained why Take-Two would do better as part of his company."I wouldn't change a line of code in 'Bioshock,' and the same goes for 'GTA' and 'Max Payne,' " he said. "What we would do is sell more of them. Given our scale, we have substantial operations in places we don't believe they have ever visited. ... That allows us to sell more software and do so more efficiently."

Strauss Zelnick speaks on EA's takeover attempt

I have a big story in tomorrow's Daily Variety detailing all the machinations in the EA/Take-Two battle today, which I hope you'll read if you're interested in what I think is the most important news in the media business so far this year.

But I thought Cut Scene readers would be interested in more of what Take-Two executive chairman Strauss Zelnick had to say when I interviewed him today. So here's the full transcript, or at least the on-the-record parts. Topics Mr. Zelnick didn't want to discuss publicly included EA's attempt to buy Take-Two last year and whether he has been approached by other potential buyers recently.

On how he views EA's going public with its acquisition offer for Take-Two after it was rejected by the board:

This isn't personal. It's business. I think both parties are conducting themselves in accordance with their own strategic goals and in accordance with what good governance demands.

Does the offer to re-start talks with EA on April 30 (the day after "Grand Theft Auto IV" comes out) after EA's move today?

The timing of this deal is wrong and the value remains insufficient... The timing is out of our control now that it's in the public eye, but the fact remains that the value is woefully inadequate. Of course, as a public company one has an obligation to talk to legitimate interested parties at any time, but one the offer goes public, the tenor changes. We've seen what is on the table and we have already rejected it. There's not much else for us to do right now but listen to our shareholders and the market.

Have you talked to major institutional shareholders about the offer?

Off the record only.

On EA's assertion that global scale in the videogame business is imperative and Take-Two doesn't have it:

Historically, that's more or less case. But we have have made strides and reduced costs. We significantly cleaned up our operations. We put in place strong financing. We have hits other than "GTA." "Bioshock" sold over 2 million units. "Carnival Games" sold over one million. We are proud of those achievements and we are ready to achieve plenty more.

Is the consolidation of smaller publishers like yours inevitable in the near-term?

I have said before that I see consolidation occurring. There are two times when consolidation typically occurs: When an industry is growing rapidly or declining. We're growing and so I do believe we'll see continues consolidation. But we are a very strong company. This isn't about majors vs. independents. Take-Two is hardly a boutique firm.

EA says this is the perfect time to go ahead with an acquisition deal because development and marketing and distribution plans for "GTA IV" must be almost done and are at this point "essentially mechanical." Do you agree?

We are in charge of our own business. No one else. The release is two months away and that's what we need to be focusing on. It's not fully baked and ready to go with the push of a button. To present it as such is a little naive.

THQ, Midway, Atari stocks surge on EA's bid for Take-Two

Looks like I'm not the only one who thinks that EA's bid for Take-Two signifies a period of consolidation coming to the videogame business. Take a look at the performance of several small and mid-sized publishers' stocks Monday, none of whom had any news of their own:

THQ: Up 10% to $9.65

Midway: Up 7% to $2.19

Atari: Up 13% to $1.61

Anybody want to take bets on how many of those companies, along with some European publishers like Eidos and maybe even Ubisoft, will still be independent a year from now?

EA almost bought Take-Two a year ago

Lots more to come on this week's big news, but the most interesting tidbit from EA's conference call that just ended may have been this: According to EA, the same deal almost happened a year ago.

CEO John Riccitiello said that in March and April of 2007, which is just when he was joining the company, EA was "very serious about concluding a transaction" and "got very close to making a proposal." But at "the eleventh hour" Riccitiello said he recommended that the EA board not pursue acquiring Take-Two because it wasn't ready to handle the integration. This is before the publisher restructured itself with four labels, brought in new executives like casual games topper Kathy Vrabeck and sports topper Peter Moore, and acquired Bioware/Pandemic.

"I didn't want EA to drop the ball one execution [and] I purposely waited until late this summer to reach out again after we had established our new stragegy," Riccitiello said. Apparently he then began informal discussions with Take-Two chairman Strauss Zelnick last summer and started formal discussions about an acquisition in December, with Take 2 saying it was uninterested in January and then two official offers coming in February, both of which, as we now know, were rejected.

Haven't heard Take-Two's side of this story yet, but it's interesting to hear that EA almost bought the company just as Zelnick and CEO Ben Feder were starting their jobs. If Riccitiello's version of history is correct, the new management team might have ended up doing nothing more than take over a scandal ridden company and immediately sell it, instead of becoming major industry players as they are now.

Update, 5:35 PM: Strauss Zelnick told me that EA's aborted takeover bid last year came just before he was named chairman. So it looks like if EA hadn't backed out, Zelnick woud never have taken over Take-Two.

EA's bid for Take-Two: Get ready for industry consolidation

I'll have much more to say on EA's attempt to buy Take-Two tomorrow as I do more reporting, but for all the details as we know them now, be sure to read my story in tomorrow's Daily Variety.

As a first reaction, though, I think the proof is now incontrovertible that the name of the game in the videogame biz is consolidation. With a 50% growth rate last year, big media getting more and more involved, and franchises being key, the business is about to go through rapid changes. Basically, we can expect any small publisher to either get bought or die in the next year or two, I'd say.

The acquirers will be EA (clearly hungry to buy franchises and development studios), ActivisionBlizzard, and big media congloms that are getting interested in videogames -- companies like Disney, Warner Bros. and MTV.

So, outside of the Japanese companies and first parties, let's take a look at who else is left and what's their likely fate:

-Take-Two: Obviously a tasty acquisition target, since it's relatively inexpensive but has an ultra-valuable property in "Grand Theft Auto" and a few other decent ones, like its sports line and "Bioshock."

-THQ: Its strength is licenses, but the Nickelodeon titles did poorly last year and it's likely to lose the Pixar license after making its last game in 2011 (it already lost 2010's "Toy Story 3" to Disney Interactive). It's struggling to build some valuable internal franchises, but doesn't have a lot. As such, anyone who wants to get their hands on its internal development studios and name might be able to buy THQ at not too big a premium over its trading price, since future prospects don't look all that bright currently.

-Ubisoft: Doing pretty well and it's protected by tough European anti-trust laws. Probably just a bit too expensive and too much of a burden for anyone to buy. Wouldn't be surprised to see it be the smallest major publisher left standing when the current acquisition wave is done.

-Eidos/Sci: There has been a lot of takeover talk and, like Take-Two, it has one pretty well known property in "Tomb Raider." Despite recent setbacks, somebody will succeed in taking over Eidos, I presume. Could even be Warner Bros., which already owns 10%.

-LucasArts: Privately held and would lose most of its value if separated from "Star Wars" owner LucasFilm. It's not going anywhere.

-Midway: It's been struggling big time for the past few years. It has "Mortal Kombat" and... ummmm.... My guess is new chairwoman Shari Redstone is looking to sell. But will anyone want this underperforming company?

-Atari: Nice to buy for the name, but that's about all you'd get. Not sure why anybody would bother at this point. A more likely fate is something like Acclaim, where a private investor interested in the biz will buy the Atari name to use for a new business plan.

-Codemasters: Goldman Sachs recently invested $99 million in this small British company, which isn't too well known outside of Europe. Probably too soon for private equity investors to cash out, plus it doesn't have any appealing franchises or an appealing brand name for American publishers, I'd guess.

EA Blueprint: creating new properties in multiple media at low cost

There's been a lot of speculation in the videogame press about what exactly EA Blueprint is. All we have known for sure so far is that Neil Young (pictured right), the former head of the Electronic Arts Los Angeles development studio, moved north to to head up a new division. A widely cited report on Gametap (currently down so I'm linking to 1Up's follow-on for the moment) said it would be focused on applications for social networks like Facebook.

But last night at an EA-sponsored event here at GDC centered around a fantastic speech by Will Wright (a bad photo I took from the event is on the bottom right), I spoke to Young and learned a lot about the new division he's heading up. He also spoke a little bit about his new job on stage while introducing Wright.

Here was Neil's basic introduction to Blueprint: "We focus on creating [intellectual property] in new ways for our media and finding smart ways to spread it across the media landscape."

In other words,, social media games may be a part of Blueprint, but it's a whole lot more. Here's what I gleaned:

-Blueprint will be focused on creating new intellectual property. But not primarily through the kind of AAA titles that EA does best. "It could be live events, it could be on the Internet, it could be clothing," Young threw out as examples of how EA Blueprint could begin, or extend, the life of its properties.

-EA Blueprint has development staff working under it. That includes the team at EALA developing games in conjunction with Steven Spielberg ("Boom Blox," an untitled game about a secret agent and an android, and one we know nothing about) and Maxis -- though I assume not the teams at Maxis working on "Sims" games, since that's a whole separate division at EA.

-Blueprint will also be working with teams outside of Electronic Arts. In other words, if somebody has an idea that they want to take to EA but it's not ready to be a huge console or PC title, Neil Young is probably now the go-to guy.

-Even when it does make games, Blueprint won't be focused on $20 million events. "We want to find a new way to make games with smaller teams," Young explained. The Facebook game mentioned by Gametap is probably one example of that.

-EA Blueprint is part of the EA Games division. Young reports to Frank Gibeau.

This is a fascinating play for EA, but one that makes sense as the publishing behometh tries to find ways to create new intellectual property within a company structured around major franchises like "Madden NFL" and "The Sims," along with Hollywood licenses. If Blueprint works, it's a way for EA to take much less expensive risks that, if they work, can then permeate throughout the company.

Those familiar with Hollywood will recognize this model. It sounds a lot like an independent film division at a major studio. Just like Blueprint, labels like Fox Searchlight and Disney's Miramax have the freedom to invest in riskier, more cutting edge ideas so long as they keep budgets tight. And every once in a while, they create something like "Juno" or "Scream" that blows up and becomes a major property for its parent company.

It also looks like Blueprint may be a way for EA to work with talent from other media, including Hollywood. That would explain why the Spielberg team at EALA is in the division, and it makes sense that Young, who's as well connected in Hollywood as anyone at EA thanks to his tenure in LA, would be in charge.

Lots more to come in the story of Blueprint as we start learning what exactly it's working on soon, no doubt.

$6 billion from EA in three years?

EA may be losing ground to Activision and seeing its profits fall of late, but it got investors excited today by projecting big income far in the future.

During a meeting with analysts, CEO John Riccitiello targeted over $6 billion of revenue for its fiscal 2011, which starts in April of 2010. It's highly unusual for a company to talk about performance that far our. And Riccitiello had to make clear that it's just a "target," not actual guidance that shareholders should consider EA's best projection.

Still, it's a very big bet considering that EA's revenue for the fiscal year ending this March is expected to be around $3.5 billion. According to reporters at the investor conference, it's not exactly clear how EA plans to nearly double its revenue. But there were some new deals today that could help, including extending the exclusive deal with the NFL and Players Assn. through the 2012 season, finally setting a release date for "Spore," and confirming that it has the right to publish future "Mass Effect" incarnations from new subsid Bioware, starting with the PC version this spring.

(Photo is an Andy Warhol painting courtesy of Creative Commons)

You call this a blog, Peter Moore?

Someone needs to tell EA Sports head Peter Moore that a forum thread with no ability for readers to leave comments is NOT the same thing as a "blog," which he told the Wall Street Journal today he would be starting in order to communicate with consumers.

The first post has a couple of amusing anecdotes, but doesn't even do what he promised in the Journal: "his first order of business will be to explain why the company's exclusive deal with the NFL is good for consumers."

C'mon Peter, even Sony Computer Entertainment, not exactly the savviest company when it comes to consumer relations, has a much better blog.

Spore has a release date!

I've had a 3-D model of the creature I created in "Spore" ever since my first E3 in 2005. After all the delays, the rumors, and the worries, I know I'm not the only one excited to see that "Sim City" and "Sims" creator Will Wright's newest game (may we hope "masterpiece") finally has a release date: September. Of course, we all know release dates can be pushed back, but given how long EA and Wright have avoided putting one on "Spore," I think we should feel pretty good about this. If nothing else, it's progress.

Here's Wright's statement that EA and its Maxis subsid just released:

The wait is almost over...  We’re       in our final stages of testing and polish with "Spore" and the       team at Maxis can’t wait to see the cosmos of       content created by the community later this year.

And for those of you tragically not in the know, here's a summary of the ultimate "God game":

"Spore" gives players their own personal universe in a box. Create       and evolve life, establish tribes, build civilizations, sculpt entire       worlds and explore a universe created by other gamers. "Spore" gives players a wealth of creative tools to customize nearly every       aspect of their universe: creatures, vehicles, buildings, and even UFOs.       Players can then seamlessly share their creations with the world or       explore infinite new galaxies created by other gamers.

EA is doing the G.I. Joe game

In today's Daily Variety, I confirm that Electronic Arts is indeed, as rumored, doing a videogame tied to next summer's "G.I. Joe" movie.

Those of you obsessed with official announcements may not be satisfied with the story. But I had enough sources telling me it's happening that I'm ready to go with the story. And an EA spokesperson did confirm for me that the publisher has interactive rights to the "real American hero," even if they're not yet ready to discuss any specific titles. So that's definitely good enough for me.

EA was ready to discuss, however, a broad array of games its publishing in 2007 as part of its multi-year agreement with Hasbro, which held onto the interactive rights to G.I. Joe when it licensed the film rights to Paramount. Among the games coming this year are Scrabble, Yahtzee, Trivial Pursuit, Nerf, the Littlest Pet Shop and the one I'm most excited about, Operation. They're all coming out for mobile phones, Pogo.com PCs, DS or Wii, and are  aimed at a broad audience of non-traditional gamers, showing that EA is getting  serious about its new "casual entertainment" strategy.

Personally, though, I hope the "Operation" game moves beyond the PC, for which it's already announced, and onto the Wii. Trying to extract the funny bone without making that dorky guy's red nose light up with all my friends standing around a hi def TV is my idea of great casual entertainment.

(Read the whole story here.)

Music downloads: More total for Guitar Hero 3, but more per capita for Rock Band

One other nuggets from today's Activision earnings worth noting...

On the earnings call, Publishing President Mike Griffith said Activision has sold over five million song downloads for "Guitar Hero 3" on Xbox Live since the game launched. Recall that "Rock Band" has sold 2.5 million.

Of course, given that EA/MTV have sold 1.5 million copies of "Rock Band" in the U.S., compared to 6.5 million for "Guitar Hero 3," it appears that on a per capita basis, it's advantage: "Rock Band."

(One caveat: the vast majority of "Rock Band" units were for PS3 and 360, while many copies of "Guitar Hero III" were PS2 and Wii, which don't offer downloadable content. And Activision didn't include PS3 stats, for whatever reason. It's not clear how close the margin is just in terms of 360 owners.)

Spielberg's first game with EA gets a name, release date, screenshots

Back in 2005, EA and Steven Spielberg signed a deal to develop three new videogames together. Last summer, EA released preliminary information on two -- both of which are being developed at the L.A. development studio. We always knew the first one to come out, code named PQRS, is a block-manipulating puzzle game for the Wii aimed at casual players.

Click here for more Boom Blox screenshots

Today, EA is releasing some more info. Usually I wouldn't go through the details of a new product like this, but since it's Steven Spielberg and we are Variety, it seems appropriate. So here are all the new facts we learned:

-The game is called "Boom Blox"

-As we basically knew, players use the Wii-mote to "throw, grab and blast" Jenga-like pieces in complex 3-D puzzles.

-It comes out in May 2008.

-While it remains Wii exclusive in terms of consoles, EA is also making a version for mobile phones.

-There's single player, co-op, and versus gameplay. It  ships with over 300 levels.

-Along with puzzles, there are also characters who interact with players, including "Blox-laying chickens or the baseball throwing monkeys, who bring personality to the Tiki, Medieval, Frontier, and Haunted themed environments."

-Players can "remix" any level of the game, or build new puzzles from scratch, using a level editor. They can then share their creations online. This is particularly cool to me, since I'm a huge fan of the level editor in "Halo 3" and think that kind of thing is the future of gaming. But this is the first implementation of it in a "casual" game aimed at families that I can think of (am I wrong?). Plus it's obviously great to see games finally doing something with the Wii's Internet connection.

EA also released a bunch of screenshots. I'm pasting in small versions of a couple of my favorites in the post, but you can see a full gallery of them here:

Boom Blox screenshot gallery

Oh, and no further info on Spielberg's other game in development, code-named "LMNO" -- an "A.I." like game about a secret agent on the run with an android woman that's being made for 360 and PS3. We probably won't see that one until either the holidays or sometime next year. And no word yet at all on what Spielberg's third game with EA will be.