The Cut Scene - Video Game Blog by Variety

Grand Theft Auto IV sells $500 million-plus in its first week

Remember when I reported last month that, according to Take-Two Sources, "Grand Theft Auto IV" was on track to sell over $400 million at retail in its first week? Turns out my sources underestimated by around $100 million.

As I'm reporting in Variety this morning, Take-Two and Rockstar actually sold more than $500 million worth of "GTA IV" units, totalling more than 6 million units. That demolishes the $300 million-plus record that "Halo 3" set in September.

In fact, "GTA IV" broke that record on its first day, selling $310 million, or 3.6 million units on April 29. "Halo 3" sold $170 million on its first day in the U.S. (the game didn't quite have a simultaneous worldwide release)

And to the extent that it matters -- only a bit, in my book, given how different the economic model is -- it's bigger than the closest comparable box office record we could find: $404 million over six days for "Pirates of the Caribbean: at World's End."

Given that huge first week figure and that there's likely to be a surge in sales come the holidays  (at least amongst the more permissive or clueless parents out there), I'd say "GTA IV" has a very good shot at beating "San Andreas'" franchise record of 21.5 million units.

Strauss Zelnick and his team are sure to be happy, since this make's Electronic Arts' case that it can do an even better job with the "GTA" franchise than Take-Two a bit harder to argue. It'll be interesting to see today whether investors had sales this massive built into Take-Two's stock price or if its get a bump.

Guys on line for Grand Theft Auto IV

(Yes, I helped make this. It's one of the things I do outside of Variety. So I'll be posting episodes on here regularly because, hey, it's my blog. But I'll try not to comment on my own stuff.)

Narrative sophistication vs. open world in Grand Theft Auto IV

(Given the nature of the blogosphere, I probably need to establish up front that I gave "Grand Theft Auto IV" a very positive review. Not as much of a rave as most of these reviewers, but still very positive. So even though I'm going to discuss a problem in the game here, please don't start writing "Variety hates 'GTA IV.'" Take the time to read the review if you're interested in my overall opinion.)

Anyone who read my review of "Grand Theft Auto IV" may have noticed this paragraph since it was my one really substantial complaint about the game (my not so substantial complaint about the game is that the parodies on the radio are so stridently left wing and on-the-nose that they're completely unfunny):

“GTA IV’s” only fundamental problem, however, is that the world and the story have advanced so far past the gameplay. The ability to go anywhere and do anything was revolutionary in the early “GTA” titles, but sometimes feels awkward in a game with such well-crafted characters and stories. How can players seriously believe Niko’s on a date when his girlfriend doesn’t mind that he’s carrying a knife, walking her through a 5-foot-deep pond and getting in numerous car accidents? Why can a distinctive-looking illegal immigrant commit hundreds of carjackings and nobody seems to care? There are good gameplay-related answers, of course, but they still detract from the immersive realism that “GTA IV” otherwise creates.

I thought it was worth exploring this issue a little more. Dan Houser said in my interview with him last month (extended transcript here) that "GTA IV" has a more original and sophisticated story and characters than previous franchise entries because they should match the growing sophistication of the technology, graphics, physics, etc. that power the game.

When he said it, that made sense to me, but as it turns out, I don't think it holds true in an open-world game. As better technology makes it possible to do more things in an open world, that increasingly conflicts with well developed characters and plots.

Basically, you (aka Niko Bellic) can do a lot of crazy shit in "GTA IV." And you can do it really realistically. Cause mass traffic accidents; shoot cops; commit suicide off a tall building; jump in the Hudson River; stab random people; etc., etc.

It's all great fun. Except it's Niko Bellic doing these things. The same Niko Bellic who's involved in a fairly sophisticated plot with fairly well developed supporting characters. If you choose to do crazy shit in the sandbox of Liberty City, why doesn't it impact the story and the way people in Niko's life treat him? It's impossible to care about Niko's relationship with Michelle early in the game when she doesn't care if he stabs people or dunks her in the water gets in a dozen car accidents while on a date.  Roman may be a bit of a nutcase, but based on what I know of the character, I feel like he would care if his cousin Niko had killed a dozen innocent civilians with an uzi and carjacked 50 different vehicles in the past 24 hours.

Technically speaking, of course I understand why the story and characters can't react to the infinite number of things that players can do in an open world. Artistically speaking, however, there is a fundamental conflict between sandbox and well developed narrative. When the player has opportunities to do anything, the events that the developers make happen no longer hold together in a tonally, thematically, or even logically consistent way. It's the equivalent of a novel where all the even chapters are written by a professional writer and the odd chapters are left blank for the reader to fill in with any random thought that pops into his or her head.

"GTA IV" has the most opportunities for realistic mayhem of any game in the series as well as the best characters and story. Which is why this "open world vs. narrative sophistication" conflict is more pronounced and more disturbing than any previous game in the series. Which is why I gave "GTA IV" a very good review, but not a rave.

(Thoughts? Please discuss in the comments and/or write on your own blog if you have one.)

GTA IV producer: the game might have cost $100 million

There's a good interview in the Times of London with Leslie Benzies, the producer of the "Grand Theft Auto" games who's so media-averse he makes Dan Houser look like a cast member from "The Hills."

According to the Times, it's literally the "first interview he's ever given to the mainstream media." And there are some fun details, such as Benzies' estimate that the game cost $100 million to make and involved 1000 people at one time or another.

It's also amazing to read what the Times had to do to get Benzies on the record. Securing an interview with Dan Houser wasn't easy, but again, it was nothing compared to this:

Penetrating Rockstar North's office has proved to be trickier than stealing a virtual lorryload of heroin. Negotiations to interview Leslie Benzies - Rockstar North's president and the producer of GTA IV - have been going on for months. Questions have been submitted and briefings given. It has been repeatedly emphasised that, although Rockstar North is the engine room of GTA, equal billing must be given to the president of Rockstar Games, Sam Houser, and his brother Dan, vice-president of creative, the head honchos at the New York parent company. It makes you wonder if the only power struggle here is between rival Russian mafiosi.

There's nothing else incredibly revealing, but it's still a fun read for any GTA fan and I recommend checking it out.

Also check out:

Variety's "GTA IV" review

Excerpts from my interview with Dan Houser.

Grand Theft Auto IV review

After dozens of hours of playing (still undoubtedly not enough to truly take it all in), my review of "Grand Theft Auto IV" is done and up. Is it the greatest game since "Ocarina of Time?" Am I angry and bitter that I didn't get to run an "exclusive review?" Have I been paid by some competitor of Rockstar to write a bad review?

Read it and decide for yourself. Here's the opening paragraph:

"Grand Theft Auto IV” marks a huge leap forward for videogames as an immersive experience while making little more than a few tweaks to the ultra-successful franchise's formula. The technological prowess and artistic detail are so phenomenal and the sheer amount of content is so staggeringly deep that players will find themselves drawn into Liberty City like no other fictional place. Such deep immersion sometimes highlights the flaws in “Grand Theft Auto’s” well-worn formula, but that will be little more than an asterisk for the millions of gamers sure to be carjacking their way through “GTA IV” for a long, long time to come.

And you can read the entire thing by clicking here. If you have any thoughts, please go ahead and share them in the comments.

Some further analysis of the game that didn't make the review is coming to The Cut Scene soon.

Parents Television Council: Retailers shouldn't carry Grand Theft Auto IV

Last week I posted extended excerpts from California State Senator Leland Yee’s warning to parents about “Grand Theft Auto IV.” But he’s not the only one warning parents not to play the game before playing it. The Parents Television Council not only issued a warning, but went even further, "calling on all major retailers to reconsider any decisions to sell this game." Which of course means even adults wouldn’t be able to get their hands on it.

I thought it was worth understanding where PTC, which claims 1.2 million members and 50 chapters across the country, is coming from and what it’s telling the public about the game, so I got on the phone with the group's national grassroots director Gavin McKiernan.

Me: Have you seen the game yet? And why are you so much more concerned about this than an R-rated movie? Do you subscribe to the theory that videogames are more harmful than other media because they’re interactive?

Gavin McKiernan: We haven’t played it yet, but we know what was in the last “Grand Theft Auto” games and we don’t think they’re suddenly going to start making games that look like “Sesame Street.”

The research we’ve seen over the last decade say that violent videogames do have a greater potential to impact children negatively because of their interactive nature.

Also, people play videogames for hours upon hours. A movie is just a couple of hours.

Me: Most stores that sell videogames have a strict policy not to sell M-rated titles like “Grand Theft Auto IV” to minors. Why isn’t that enough for you?

Our concern is the lack of follow-through. The chain retail stores all claim they follow a code. That’s nice, but voluntary compliance is what it is. Every time we or others have done secret shoppers, we find 50% and up sell games to kids under the appropriate age bracket. We feel there should be some legal ramifications.

[Note: The most recent Federal Trade Commission study found that 42% of kids were able to buy an M-rated game, while 71% could buy an R-rated DVD.]

Me: So you would support laws like the one in California (overturned by a federal court last year and currently being appealed) prohibiting sales of games deemed violent to anyone under 18?

GM: Yes. The videogame industry claims its regulations should be followed. If they believe that, they should support a law to back it up.

Me: Your critics would argue that you’re treating videogames differently than other media that are protected by the First Amendment.

GM: We’re not looking to ban videogames. We’re just looking to keep adult videogames in adult hands.

Our society limits the rights of minors in all sorts of ways. No one would argue a six year-old should have unfettered access to pornography or guns. I’m not comparing videogames to guns, but adult products need to be kept away from children.

Me: But you went further than that in your statement. You don’t want stores to carry this game at all?

GM: We did ask the big chains not to carry it and if they are, we want them to treat it as an adult product. Target doesn’t carry handguns. If it wants to be consistent with its other policies, it shouldn’t sell violent games and if it does they certainly shouldn’t be accessible to kids in any way.

If adults want to purchase the game, we’re not concerned with that. But this product is available to kids and there are not enough checks. If you carry it on your shelves that means it is accessible to children.

Me: So do you think videogames have any value at all? Or do you basically think the entire medium is detrimental or at best a waste of time?

GM: There are a lot of positive videogames. There are always two sides to the coin. They can be a great instruction if you look at titles like “Flight Simulator” or “SimCity.” A lot of games teach people. But if you accept that, you also have to accept the other side. It’s hypocritical to say videogames can teach positive things but not negative things.

Me: You guys review the content in lots of movies and TV shows. Given your concerns, will somebody at PTC play “GTA IV” when it comes out?

GM: We’re not in a position to do that resource-wise. We’re stretched as thin as can be on TV shows and movies. Most likely we will rely on other guys who do more videogame reviewing.

Exclusive reviews are ethically troubling

IGN.com just came out with its review of "Grand Theft Auto IV" and it's a perfect 10 rave.

I want to note up front that I haven't played much of "GTA IV" yet, so I have absolutely no basis to claim it's not a 10. The bits of it I have seen in previews are really good. So I'm not at all accusing IGN of being dishonest in this particular case.

HOWEVER... what the hell is with the concept of an "exclusive review?" Is anyone else as troubled by this entire concept as I am?

I just got an email from an IGN publicist titled "FYI: Exclusive GTA IV Review @ IGN.com, scores 10" alerting me that "IGN.com, the Web’s leading videogame and entertainment information destination, has posted the first and only review of Grand Theft Auto IV." I'm reminded of when Game Informer ran an exclusive review of "Mass Effect" a few weeks before any other outlet and gave that game a 9.75. I was shocked since I really didn't think "Mass Effect" was that great (and said as much in my review), but of course it's very possible that the Game Informer folks just disagreed with me and that's well within their rights.

(Though I have to say I still found the Game Informer review problematic, since they gave "Mass Effect" an almost perfect score despite noting that "most of the skirmishes, which begin and end in the blink of an eye, run into balancing issues, problematic AI, and a difficulty in comprehending what is transpiring" and "it controls admirably, but it doesn’t live up to the large stage the story sets or the standards you’ve come to expect from action games and RPGs." Those are pretty significant faults.)

However, anyone who knows anything about videogame journalism knows that when an outlet gets a review copy of a game, they agree to an embargo -- not to run their review before anyone else. In these cases, Game Informer and IGN.com clearly got permission from Microsoft and Rockstar, respectively, to run their reviews before any other outlet. And it means they got their copy of the game pretty damned early in order to have the review ready to run early.

Of course, once one outlet runs a review, nobody else feels beholden to an embargo and they probably start running their reviews soon. So I expect we'll start seeing more "GTA IV" reviews popping up on websites over the weekend. (Having only gotten my copy today, you won't see one in Variety for another few days).

But being the first outlet to review a highly anticipated new videogame is a big deal. It means a major boost in Web traffic or magazine sales. Anybody who cares about "GTA IV" has probably read the IGN review already, or will very soon. And every major videogame blog is probably linking to it. I have already had several friends e-mail it to me and of course here I am writing about it.

So, we have a situation where a publisher gives a videogame website or magazine a major commercial advantage by providing an early copy of the game and an early embargo so they can run the "exclusive review." This probably results in more magazine sales or Web traffic and thus more revenue.

So, again, I'm not saying that "GTA IV" doesn't deserve a 10, or "Mass Effect" its 9.75. But how can we trust a videogame review when the outlet running it has been given a major commercial favor -- one that's worth money -- from the publisher of the game? You never see a paper or TV station getting special access from a movie studio or TV network or book publisher to run an "exclusive review." Imagine the L.A. Times or Roger Ebert touting their "exclusive review of 'Iron Man.'" Absurd, right? So why do we tolerate it for a videogame?

Exclusive reviews are really ethically troubling, for all the reasons I've outlined above. And I'll state it flat out: I personally don't trust any review labeled "exclusive." Is anyone else as disturbed by this practice as I am?

(I should note that, of course, every videogame publication and lots of newspapers, including my own, run "exclusive" news and feature stories that sometimes result from cooperation with a company. But I consider reviews  to be an entirely different beast. Even if a company cooperated on a news or feature story, the facts are still the facts. You can't report something that's incorrect <and still be doing your job, at least>. But reviews are entirely subjective, so if a critic is being influenced inappropriately in any way, the whole thing is worthless even though we as readers can't prove there's anything "wrong.")

Update (4/26): Perhaps I was wrong about one thing. Even though IGN ran its review yesterday, nobody else seems to have one up. Not even IGN's biggest competitors GameSpot and 1UP . Apparently they're all waiting on an embargo that Kotaku says is tomorrow (Sunday) morning. That truly blows my mind. In my world, if I had a story or review ready to go and was waiting on an embargo, the minute somebody else ran the same review or story, I would run mine. If a publisher or studio or whatever gave me a later embargo, tough sh*t. Any self-respecting publication with a "Grand Theft Auto IV" review ready should be running it now. If mine was ready, I know I would. (Mini-preview: I've been playing it a while and it's really good. But it's not 10/10 "best since 'Ocarina of Time'" good. It does have faults.)

I didn't ask Dan Houser about a PC version

Just to publicly answer a question that numerous people have asked me via e-mail and in comments: No, I didn't ask Dan Houser in our interview a few weeks ago why "GTA IV" isn't initially coming out on PC and whether it eventually will. So I don't know anything more about that than you all do (to wit: They haven't announced anything yet, so it's not coming anytime soon).

Blockbuster putting videogames in "new releases" starting with "Grand Theft Auto IV"

Even if you haven't been in a Blockbuster store in a while, you probably remember the importance of that "new release" outer wall. I know when I was a kid, before Netflix and before Xbox Live video downloads (the two ways I rent movies today), going to Blockbuster on a Friday and scanning the outer walls for anything new and exciting to bring home and watch that weekend was always a big and exciting event (surmise what you will of my social life as a child).

That's why it's a pretty big deal for gamers -- albeit not nearly as big a deal as it would have been a decade ago -- that Blockbuster Video is adding videogames to that valuable "new releases" real estate on the outer wall. During an interview I did with Blockbuster CEO Jim Keyes about "GTA IV," he confirmed to me that his troubled chain is using the game to launch video games on the "new release" outer walls:

The magnitude of the "GTA IV" launch is a real springboard for us in some ways. Based on the huge expected popularity of this game, we made the decision to use it as the centerpiece for our move to the wall. This is a big event for Blockbuster. The new release wall is sacred ground for us. With the introduction of "GTA IV," we are going to launch a new release section of the wall with all three major platforms represented. We think that's going to attract a lot of people to our game offerings.

Blockbuster, of course, has been struggling in the face of intense competition from Netflix, online downloads (legal and illegal), the big box stores, and a general slowdown of the homevideo market. It's attempting to buy Circuit City in a bid to gets its hands on more digital devices that are used to distribute and watch movies at home.

In that context, the videogame biz, with its 50%-plus growth rates, has got to be mightily attractive. So while Blockbuster putting videogames on the new releases wall should result in greater respect for and consumption of games in the mass market, it's even more a sign of how badly the traditional entertainment industry wants a piece of the fast growing videogame coin.

Leland Yee gunning for "GTA IV"

California's crusading anti-game state senator Leland Yee (left) has his eyes on "Grand Theft Auto IV." His office just put out a letter in which the Democrat "URGES PARENTS TO AVOID LATEST ULTRA-VIOLENT VIDEO GAME."

For those who don't know, Yee has battled for a long time to regulate video games. In an interview with me in 2005, he said they are more comparable to alcohol and tobacco in their negative impact on children than movies and TV. Last year, a bill he sponsored to prohibit the sale of games deemed "violent" to would-be buyers under 18 was overturned by a federal district court judge. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is appealing that decision.

I must admit that I'm amazed Yee already knows that "Grand Theft Auto IV" is "ULTRA-VIOLENT." I've only gotten to play it for an hour. But if he's making a claim like that, he must have gotten to play it for several hours at least. After all, a state senator wouldn't make a claim like that if he hasn't yet played the game? He wouldn't just make assumptions, right? Man am I jealous he already got to play.

Some of Yee's assertions are just a tad bit misleading, though. So I thought I'd provide an excerpt of his press release with some interruptions for my own commentary.

“It is imperative that parents avoid purchasing this game for their children and always review the video games their children are playing,” said Yee, who is also a child psychologist.  “Unfortunately, the makers of Grand Theft Auto have a history of deceiving the ratings board and the public on the true content of their games.  Parents beware: this game undoubtedly glorifies violence, is extremely realistic and designed for adults only.”

Whether Rockstar was "deceiving the ratings board and public" about content that couldn't be accessed by anyone except hackers and which many people at the company arguably didn't know was in there is questionable.

Based on what I've played, I'd say it is "extremely realistic" and is definitely "designed for adults only." Whether it "glorifies violence" is, I suppose, debatable. There is a lot of violence, but shooting anyone and everyone is definitely not the way to win all the missions.

In June 2005, the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) and GTA’s creator Rockstar, were involved in a multi-million dollar scandal called “Hot Coffee,” in which Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, a game originally rated M by the ESRB, was found to have hidden animations allowing players to watch graphic scenes of oral sex, nudity, and simulated intercourse. 

Which could only be accessed by hackers able to download and implement a mod on their PC.

The scandal resulted in the game being pulled from most store shelves, a $2.75 million class-action settlement, and the stocks of Rockstar’s parent company (Take Two Interactive) losing nearly half their value.

The game was indeed pulled since versions with the "hot coffee" mod were re-rated "Adults Only" and most retailers won't carry AO titles. The class action settlement does cost up to $2.75 million. I have no idea where he gets the claim that Take-Two stock fell by 50%. From the time the "hot coffee" mod was released on June 9, Take-Two stock didn't really move at all that summer (even during the initial controversy in July). Later that year, and into 2006 it started falling substantially, but that only partly because of "hot coffee." Take-Two was having lots of other financial problems at the time.

The ESRB rates a game based solely on a short video clip and information supplied by the game’s maker and does not actually play or review the full content of the game.

I don't think the ESRB would say the video clips are "short," but they don't play the entire game, that's true. Of course, playing an open world game in order to rate it would probably be tough since you can play the game all the way through and miss lots of stuff.

While M-rated games are designed for adults, there is no prohibition to selling such games to children.

No legal prohibition. But all the major retailers have strict policies to enforce ESRB ratings. This sentence is highly misleading. It makes it sound like the "M" rating is just a suggestion and any kid can go in and buy the game.

In fact, the Federal Trade Commission reports that 42 percent of unaccompanied children 13 to 16 years of age can successfully purchase M-rated games.

True, but that number is substantially lower than the the number of teenagers who can buy R-rated DVDs or CDs with explicit lyrics. In fact, the FTC specifically noted that "while video game retailers have made significant progress in limiting sales of M-rated games to children, movie and music retailers have made only modest progress limiting sales." Though of course if you, like Yee, think video games are more like cigarettes than movies, this isn't too relevant.

In addition, a recent report by the National Institute on Media & the Family found complacency among retailers, parents and the gaming industry regarding video game rating awareness, enforcement and usage.  Among the report’s highlights was a retailer grade of C-, with national retailers receiving a D and rental stores collecting a failing (F) grade.  The game industry as a whole received a C and the ESRB received a C+.

Misleading. I just looked at the actual report. The C- for retailers is for their education of employees and families (called "retailers policies). While national retailers did get a D and rental stores an F, specialty retailers (like GameStop) got a B. The ESRB got a C+ for its ratings process, but a B- for its ratings education. Oh, and the parents who Yee is warning? The NIMF gave them a C and said they have to get more involved. Apparently parents are doing worse than the ESRB and specialty retailers and just the same as the industry. (It's also worth noting, though I'm sure it's obvious, that the National Institute on Media & the Family is a pretty conservative group).

I doubt many readers of this blog are sympathetic to arguments like Yee's, but it's worth considering what they're saying, since I'm sure the mainstream media is going to be all over this "controversy" in the next week as "GTA IV" comes out. Tomorrow or Monday I'm hoping to run an interview with one of the groups that's speaking out against the game.

GTA IV mural dominating downtown Los Angeles

I don't know if it's as true in other cities as L.A. and, based on my visit there a few weeks ago, New York, but Los Angeles is currently flooded with sexy/cool "Grand Theft Auto IV" billboards that tell you nothing about the game except the attitude of its characters (which, of course, is what Rockstar's Dan Houser told me is exactly the point).

But there's a giant triptych downtown that's apparently the coolest "GTA IV" ad of them all. I don't go downtown much, but I kind of want to just to see this (which I got off off a creative commons license on Flickr after being tipped by Kotaku)

Dan Houser's very extended interview about everything "Grand Theft Auto IV" and Rockstar

(Note: If you haven’t yet, I hope you’ll read the three feature articles I wrote based in large part on my visit to Rockstar’s offices a few weeks ago. There’s a profile of Dan Houser and the company, an analysis of how “GTA IV” will impact movie and TV viewership and DVD sales, and a look at the music in the game and Rockstar’s unique partnership with Amazon.com. More details are in this blog post.)

Sitting down with Dan Houser in a conference room at Rockstar’s offices on the fourth floor or Take-Two’s HQ in the east village of Manhattan isn’t nearly as anxiety-inducing as it might seem.

Sure, Rockstar’s co-founder and creative VP talks very rarely to the press, but it’s not because he’s shy or weird or crazy or anything like that. In fact, after our approximately 90 minute talk on the record, we gabbed like fanboys about other crap for a half hour off the record.

Dan Houser is, however, really really reluctant to have people in the press talking about him instead of his games. That’s why interviews are rare and his staff pushes very hard to put “GTA IV” itself first and foremost in any coverage when he does talk to the press. There aren’t even any recent photos of him available. That one on the right that I found on Google is at least a few years out of date. The Dan Houser I met is a little older and a little balder.

So try and imagine that and try to imagine him talking in his British accent as I present some extended excerpts from our interview on April 4. And when I say “extended,” I mean “extended.” This isn’t everything, but it’s a lot. Frankly, I just think everything in here is really interesting and worth sharing. I’ve got him talking why “GTA IV” is the first truly original game in the series, why storage capacity is more important than console power, why Rockstar doesn’t make first person games, why he doesn’t want to make a “GTA” movie, why he considers the upcoming episodic content an “experiment,” what he has to say to critics of “GTA’s” sex and violence, and why he thinks his games deserve to stand beside movies, not other videogames (amongst many other topics).

If this seems way too long to handle, I recommend just reading the profile article, which has the best points and quotes in it. But I think a lot of Cut Scene readers will find a more thorough transcript as interesting as I do. And if you have any thoughts on what Dan said, please discuss in the comments.

Me: I think this is a great opportunity for us at Variety to look at a major game launch and how it compares to the other media we’re used to covering…

Dan Houser: It’s funny all of that stuff. A lot of our competitors in the game sphere – all they want to talk about is business. Because they have creative guys making the games but they run it like, “how can we compete?” We want to kill that stuff in some ways. We want to have very successful launches. We’ve had successful launches before but our angle is always creativity.

Mainly because we’re in a position where we see games slowly gaining credibility as an art form as a medium. A lot of other people want to purely look at that from a business angle. For those of us who spend years slaving over making the thing, the thing isn’t “We make this much money.” That isn’t interesting. The thing is, “Does it resonate with people and take an interesting place in their cultural fabric?" That’s an interesting story to us.

I often -- without mentioning any names -- think some of our big competitor titles, their marketing campaign is, “Look at our great marketing campaign!” Ours is, “Look at the game, experience the game hopefully.” Then we want to have further conversations with people once they play the game properly. But the two things we want to avoid are talking purely about this as a business -- its not, this is a creative activity. Obviously its young and its not fully mature but we are trying to move it forward as quickly as we can. And obviously the counter to that is everyone wants to go on the controversy story. I’m like, “We can talk about anything in context.” Movies moved beyond that years ago.

Me: So I’m not going to be able to quote you talking about how you “exploit your intellectual property on an annual basis” or something?

DH: No, no, no. We try and protect it. The intellectual property is the main asset in the company. That’s why “GTA” is still relevant 10 years later. We haven’t put one out every year. We haven’t fleeced it. And we haven’t put it on 50 different formats. We’re not per se against moving properties between different media but for “GTA” it just seems so perfect as a game. You lose a lot of what makes it what it is if you move it into being, say, a movie. It just never seemed interesting creatively.

Me: Well, I was going to ask you that later, but since you brought it up… You guys must have been approached so many different times by so many people who want to talk about making a movie.

Grand Theft Auto IV blowout in Variety

This week's Variety (the weekly magazine, not the daily paper) features three separate stories on "Grand Theft Auto IV" (all by that guy up there on the top right of the page). It's an extravaganza that I hope is worthy of the biggest videogame of the year. And it's not over yet. Coming this weekend - when I finish writing it all up - will be extended highlights from my 90 minute sitdown interview with Rockstar's co-founder and VP creative Dan Houser, who videogame fans know does not talk to the press often, to say the least.

For now, I hope you'll check out the Variety pieces:

-Everyone's asking whether "GTA IV" will impact the "Iron Man" opening. But while the jury's still out on that one, the jury is in on other media: a big videogame opening impacts both TV ratings and DVD sales. Read it here.

-Why does Dan Houser think "GTA IV" should be compared to movies, not videogames? And why does he aspire to "not being called an asshole?" Find out in my profile of how Rockstar became, well... a Rockstar, and why Houser says "GTA IV" is the first game in the franchise that's not heavily influenced by other media. It's a truly original creation. Check it out here.

-GTA IV features hundreds of songs on 18 different in-game radio stations (16 music, two talk). How does the team at Rockstar pick them? And will their deal with Amazon.com to allow downloads of songs heard in the game via a single click revolutionize the way we find music and the way artists and labels make money from videogames? It's all right here.

Grand Theft Auto IV on Xbox 360 selling better than Playstation 3

Breaking news on Variety... I have learned from good sources who know what Take-Two is selling into retail that "Grand Theft Auto IV" is poised to gross over $400 million worldwide in its first week, beating the record set in September by "Halo 3," which grossed $300 million.

Also, while I'm always wary of such comparisons since spending on movies vs. games is so wildly different, it's worth noting that "GTA IV" will be right on par with the biggest movie debut of all time, "Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End," which grossed $404 million worldwide its first day.

All the details are available right here on Variety.com

Also of note to Cut Scene readers is that I spoke to GameStop's senior VP or merchandising Bob McKenzie for the story. He's being a little more conservative with his estimates right now than the people I spoke to who know what Take-Two is selling to all retailers worldwide. Right now McKenzie thinks "GTA IV" will be a little smaller for his chain than "Halo 3" was.

On the other hand, Blockbuster CEO Jim Keyes told me that he expects "Grand Theft Auto IV" to "likely to do two times the volume that 'Halo 3' did" for his store. (More on Blockbuster's plans for "GTA IV" coming in another post soon.)

But I also asked McKenzie how the two different console versions of the game were looking for GaneStop and he shared this:

"Looking at the way pre-orders are trending, we're expecting it to be a little stronger on 360 than PS3," he told me, though he (unsurprisingly) wouldn't go into details on what the exact percentage would be.

So... we've had the poll on Joystiq, we have the GameFly rental data, we've had the debates about whether the highest install base of the 360 and the exclusive downloadable content would trump "GTA's" historical association with the Playstation console... and now we have our first solid data. It looks like Xbox 360 is going to beat PS3 for this game.

HOWEVER... it's worth noting that the 360 currently has a significant lead over the PS3. As of February, it was 9.6 million compared to 3.8 million in the U.S., according to NPD. So if the 360:PS3 ratio of "GTA IV" sales is closer than that, like say 60/40, that has to be considered something of a win for Sony, as it implies a higher tie ratio for their console and could potentially sell more PS3's than 360's. That would at least tighten the race between the two.

Gamefly rentals: GTA IV way ahead on 360

Here's the latest rental data from GameFly (the Netflix-esque service for videogames). No surprise that "Grand Theft Auto IV" for 360 is currently their number 1 game, given how huge that title is going to be and the superior install base of the 360.

But it is notable that while "GTA IV" for PS3 is way back in seventh place, behind titles like "Mario Kart Wii" (OK that's not so big a surprise), "Dark Sector," "R6V2," "Viking: Battle for Asgard" and "Army of Two." I guess what we're seeing is that the difference in install base amongst avid gamers means that recent releases that got mediocre critical receptions like "Dark Sector" and "Viking" on 360 still outpoll the most anticipated PS3 games of the year. If "GTA IV" on PS3 doesn't pull ahead to at least no. 3 by the time it comes out, that's probably not a good sign.

Rank	Title	Platform	Category	Publisher
1	Grand Theft Auto IV	Xbox 360	Action Adventure	Take Two
2	Mario Kart Wii	Wii	Racing	Nintendo
3	Dark Sector	Xbox 360	Shooter	D3P
4	Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Vegas 2	Xbox 360	Shooter	Ubisoft
5	Viking: Battle for Asgard	Xbox 360	Action Adventure	Sega
6	Army of Two	Xbox 360	Shooter	Electronic Arts
7	Grand Theft Auto IV	PlayStation 3	Action Adventure	Take Two
8	Gran Turismo 5: Prologue	PlayStation 3	Racing	Sony Computer Entertainment
9	Bully: Scholarship Edition	Xbox 360	Action Adventure	Take Two
10	Condemned 2: Bloodshot	Xbox 360	Action Adventure	Sega

Grand Theft Auto IV multi-player: sniping from the Empire State Building

Lots of other great sites have detailed "Grand Theft Auto IV's" multi-player, so I'm not going to go too in-depth. But I did get an opportunity to play for about an hour during my visit to Rockstar last week (which will be turning into what I hope will be an in-depth package for Variety in a week or two) and I have a few thoughts I wanted to be sure and note here:

-I counted at least 14 different multi-player modes, though I only got to play 4 of them. I think I agreed not to list all the titles, but suffice to say they appear to range from standard deathmatches to car races to cops vs. crooks to ones that involve controlling territory and ones that actually focus on Hillary Clinton's favorite "GTA" activity: carjacking.

-The coolest moment by far: Starting a team deathmatch on "GTA IV's" equivalent of Liberty island, hopping into a helicopter with my teammates (far more experienced Rockstar employees) and taking the action all the way up to the top of a skyscraper near the Empire State Building. One person actually hopped off the chopper onto the Empire State Building and was sniping from there.

The point: the fact that "GTA IV" doesn't limit multi-player to small maps from the overall game, but uses all of Liberty City, allows for crazy variations. Of course, if you're playing with fewer than 16 people, the ability to run all the way around that relatively large map could be frustrating. You have to be careful about how you design your games. Luckily, "GTA IV" seems to allow lots of customization in designing the multi-player matches.

-Also awesome: Jumping in a boat and being chased by somebody else who's in a helicopter.

-I fell behind in a race and once I realized I wasn't going to win, I decided to have fun f*cking with everyone else. So I piled up a few cars at a bottleneck in the course, climbed up to a point over the the bottleneck, and started shooting at my opponents as they got stuck and tried to work their way around. Maybe not the most gentlemanly way to play, but great fun.

-There's only a few character customization options, but I played as a woman, just to shake things up (no surprise, the match with Rockstar employees and another journalist was a total sausage fest). There's something very unusual and cool about seeing a woman in "GTA." One who's not a hooker, that is.

-The ranking system is based on collecting money, which you get for achieving various goals in the games.  But you don't just get money for killing somebody. After you kill them, they leave money on the ground and you have to go collect it. And obviously other people can collect it too. I'm not too sure how I feel about that. It fits the "GTA" aesthetic, but picking up items to get rewards feels a little old-fashioned compared to all the detailed and various rewards -- sometimes to the point of absurdity -- in "Call of Duty 4" or "Rainbow Six Vegas 2."

-Conclusion: There's a lot I still don't know, but based on my hour of playing, I was comfortable enough to e-mail my list of friends I play Xbox Live with (which lately has been all "CoD 4") and let them know: "'GTA IV' is going to be our game from April 29 until at least the fall."

(thanks to Kotaku for the image)

New GTA IV trailer

GTA IV has a new trailer and I've got to say, it's pretty kick ass. What I like is that -- with the exception of the final shot on the rooftops -- it doesn't just try to rip off a standard movie trailer, which is what most videogame trailers do. It's a really interesting, non-standard music choice, and I think it captures the diversity (I hope) of the game characters and setting really well, rather than trying to encapsulate a narrative. That's what most games trailers do and it's especially annoying given that the narrative is often less deep in the game than in the trailer.

Here it is. If you're under 17, you shouldn't be watching:

"Grand Theft Auto IV" preview

Last Friday, Rockstar Games was in L.A. giving journalists an in-depth peek at “Grand Theft Auto IV,” along with a look at the improvements in “Bully: Scholarship Edition,” the 360/Wii version of 2006’s awesome “GTA at prep school.”

Demo’s were done at the Chateau Marmont hotel (but of course… where else would Rockstar do demo’s but Chateau Marmont?). I can’t deny that I was a little distracted the whole time wondering how many times Lindsay Lohan or Britney Spears ever collapsed (from exhaustion, of course) in the very room I was sitting in. But once I got past that, I was just as impressed as I hoped to be by “GTA IV.”

Rockstar’s VP of development Jeronimo Barrera (who led me through the demo) wasn’t shy about how much of an advance his team thinks the game is. “’Grand Theft Auto 3’ changed the industry tremendously, but in many ways this is a bigger leap,” he boasted. (Sure, it’s kind of a canned line. But he sure seemed to believe it.)

Let’s start with the way he’s not right: Fundamentally, “GTA IV” is the same game we’re used to – the basic structure created in 2001’s “GTA III.” It’s a third person action title about a newcomer to Liberty City who meets lots of people, goes on missions both to earn money and fulfill a personal goal, and is capable of wreaking total havoc along the way.

We’ve also got the series’ trademark character types, from thugs to funny small-time gangsters to a stoic lead. Protagonist Niko is an Eastern European immigrant who is aptly described by one guy he meets as “a badass mofo who ain’t afraid to take cats down.”

But how is Jeronimo right? Graphically, “GTA IV” is really a cut above. Not so much in the minutiae, but the depth. As we’ve come to expect from “GTA,” there are no loading times, but the number of people and vehicles, the variety of settings, and the believable actions of them all are tremendous. Seeing the
Manhattan skyline from Brooklyn (or Liberty city’s versions of them) is just plain awesome.

Ditto the dynamic character and vehicle actions. Shoot a guy in the knee and he hobbles. Blow out a car’s right wheel and it veers in that direction. Pull a gun on a civilian and she’ll beg for her life. Liberty City feels alive and responsive. Even though  it’s not as big in area as San Andreas, there’s more richness and depth along the way, which I consider a very welcome tradeoff.

Finally, “GTA IV” attempts to seriously integrate modern day technology in a realistic way. Niko has a cell phone that he can use for any number of purposes. We’re used to cell phones that occasionally ring with player instructions, as in “No More Heroes,” but Niko can place calls on his and get responses. In the example I saw, he called 9-1-1 so he could –- you guessed it -– jack a police car. I also saw Niko use the police car’s computer to look up a criminal’s address. And I’m told “GTA IV” features in-game Internet access as well. I didn’t get to poke and prod those applications, so I have no idea how deep they go, but the idea of a character who can proactively and dynamically use modern communication tools is a qualitative leap forward in gameplay if it works.

There are some other less impressive but still welcome advancements, like a weapons system that works perfectly well –- nothing amazing, but finally “GTA” is on par with other action games. In-game music looks like it’s going to once again be ultra-deep and will probably feature some new on-demand twists we haven’t seen before. Personally, though I was kind of enjoying the right-wing talk station. It just felt right on a respite in the car between shooting sh*t up.

Not as much to say about “Bully: Scholarship Edition.” If you never played the original “Bully,” I highly recommend it. On PS2 it was my second favorite game of 2006 (only behind “Okami") and really wowed me with its solid gameplay and satirical eye. “Scholarship Edition” amps up the graphics, adds a few amusing missions and classroom activities, and includes some offline multi-player mini-games. Perhaps enough to make those who missed out on “Bully” first time around to feel like they got something for the wait, but not exactly a tricked out "director's cut" for those who have played it before.

(For a full gallery of new "Grand Theft Auto IV" screenshots, click here.)

The Grand Theft Auto movie that almost was

With the release of "Grand Theft Auto IV" coming up -- and, let's be honest, my wanting to start this blog off with a bang -- I thought it was worth letting readers know about a major story in the intersection of Hollywood and videogames, arguably the biggest ever, that almost happened last spring.

For years, everyone in Hollywood has wanted to get their hands on "Grand Theft Auto." Big name producers and senior execs at major studios all did their best to convince Rockstar to give up the film rights to their franchise. But the brothers Houser were reluctant, and who can blame them? "Grand Theft Auto" is a huge cash cow and has a bigger profile in the young male demo than most TV shows and movies. And God knows there have been a lot of awful videogame-based movies that hurt the property more than they helped. So, even amongst those able to navigate the Rockstar bureaucracy and talk to the right people, the answer was always "no."

But last year, something changed. By the spring, a deal was virtually in place with one of the six major studios to start developing a "Grand Theft Auto" movie. Eminem was quite possibly going to star.

I can't be sure of the reasons why Rockstar was finally open to a movie deal, though I suspect it had to do with the new management at parent company Take 2. This was soon after the board was ousted following a financial scandal. The new (and current) chairman, Strauss Zelnick, has significant ties to the traditional media industry given his previous posts as CEO of BMG music and president of 20th Century Fox.

How close was this deal to happening? Reporters at Variety (and, I have since learned, other publications) were preparing their stories based on conversations with the studio in question. Internally at Take 2, people were talking about it as a done deal. Then at the last minute, it all fell apart. I'm told Take 2 couldn't finalize terms with the studio, though I'm not sure if it was a purely financial issue or if, in the end, the publisher got cold feet about giving away rights to its baby.

Who knows if Rockstar will ever be willing to make a movie deal again. But for those who think that in principle the publisher would never be interested, last year's events prove them wrong. Perhaps one day it'll happen. Maybe even before the "Halo" film.

Update (2/4/08, 4:25 PM): Someone from Rockstar pinged me with this statement, attributed to VP/co-founder Dan Houser, that they have been giving to other journalists who apparently called to ask about the above story. It doesn't really contract my post since, as I said, no deal was ever in place. But I certainly stand behind my reporting that it came awful close.

Rockstar was not involved in this project in any shape or form nor is it something that we're currently interested in.  There was no GTA movie in the works as far as Rockstar is concerned. Some movie producers were trying to put something together to entice us to make a movie, as studios and production teams frequently have done in the past. This proposal was no more interesting than the numerous others we receive. We never entertained proceeding with the project.