Continuing our series of excerpts from the interviews we conducted for Variety's videogame impact report, here's an interview with Jon Burton, president of "Lego Star Wars" developer Traveller's Tales, which was acquired by Warner Bros. last year for a reported $200 million-plus. The interview was conducted by Variety reviewer, GamaSutra news director, and SexyVideogameLand proprietor Leigh Alexander.

Leigh finds out some fun things from Jon, including why getting acquired by a big publisher like Activision wouldn't have been a good fit, indications that there are more Lego games based on Warner Bros. properties beyond "Lego Batman" in the works, and hints that he's interested in making animated films.

Previous videogames impact report interviews with Penny Arcade auteurs Mike Holkins and Gabe Krahulik, "Metal Gear Solid" creator Hideo Kojima and Bungie Studios CEO Harold Ryan are already online. A few more will be coming soon.

How did Travellers' Tales Begin?

We started the company about 19 years ago –- just myself and a colleague worked out of a back bedroom, slaving away, and making our first game.

Which was?

Leander, for the Commodore Amiga way back when. We actually developed it and took it to Psygnosis, which became Sony Europe. They liked it, and signed it right there and then, and we said, "Give us a month!" You know, to make sure we can deliver what we say we can.

It was a bit like walking into a film studio and pitching a film… and then saying, “well, I’m not sure yet!” But a month later, they still wanted the game. Since then we've worked on loads of big IPs. Several Sonics, several Crash Bandicoots, Mickey Mouse... obviously, the Pixar films Finding Nemo and Toy Story. And Narnia, with Disney.

In recent times, the LEGO series. Four years ago, Travellers' Tales acquired Giant Interactive, the publisher which had the rights to the LEGO IP... [it was] unusual for a developer to acquire a publisher, but it was because we've done well with our games. We took a punt creating LEGO Star Wars, published it ourselves and it sold 6.5 million units. It was the one we’d taken a gamble on, so that worked out quite nicely.

How did it lead to you guys being acquired by Warner Bros.?

We got sort of a reputation for treating people's IPs well, and we did a lot of work... we did Transformers last year, lots of film stuff. We got talking with Warner Bros. about LEGO Batman, and it's from that initial conversation... we went ahead making that game with them, and it's from there we thought... we work really well with them, and it sort of grew from that initial discussion into what we are now, which is part of the Warner Bros. family. That worked really well, with us being so used to working with IPs.

And Warner Bros. has the biggest IPs on the planet, really, and obviously with Batman, and Harry Potter and the New Line roll-in stuff, these are great IPs you want to work with as a developer. And we sort of kept our independence - even though we're part of Warner Bros., we still have a degree of autonomy, which is what we wanted for our staff and for the company.

So with all their big IPs, Warner Bros. arguably could have chosen to partner with any studio, or to acquire probably any one they wanted. Why you guys?

I think we're fairly unusual - in the industry, anyway, in that we would always work with very aggressive timelines from very early on... with Toy Story way back in 1993, we were given seven months to make that game by Disney, which we did, and that was the first game ever that came out with  the film. And it went on to sell 3 million units, which at the time was huge. That became our bread and butter - deadlines with film tie-ins - because film couldn’t move. So we could deliver these top IP games… on time with the movies.

How do you think it serves these big film IPs?

We have the LEGO license, which when coupled with older brands - for instance, Star Wars... could reinvigorate that license completely. LEGO Star Wars sold 15 million copies so far, and yet there hasn’t been a film for a good few years. We partner with lots of stable movie properties and breathe new life into them. And the more classic and revered they are, the older players have the fun of the parody and gentle humor.

Plus, it introduces kids into the property, and we make money! We've got a great bottom line, so it made sense.

What else is good for you guys about the Warner partnership?

Warner, with building and establishing their presence in the game space... being there early on, and Warner's now experimenting and looking to build out its game division seriously… and to be there at the start and be influential is great. They appreciate my input. I'm suddenly able to influence the growth of their interactive entertainment division, which is really exciting for me.

So what’s next for you?

We’ve gotten started doing some LEGO games on the Warner IP... down the line. And for me personally, I think further in the future we’re making a kids’ TV show... using some of the tech we've developed for games. In the mid-distance, personally, to be able to dabble around in CG and film would be interesting, and Warner allows me to push in those directions without "quitting the day job," so to speak. So for me, to look to the future and think, "I wouldn’t mind [doing a film]..." And Warner allows me to take a step in that direction, and if I suck? Great, I'll make games.

I've got experience in top-level design and direction and have spent 18 years analyzing movies, so it’s "how do you build that into a game?" It's very interesting and exciting, but it’s just one possible avenue that’s available for me personally within this deal. If I'd wanted to do this in another arena – if we'd been acquired by, say, an Activision, I'd have to leave, and then I'm out of the industry.

If we did get to making movies... we could make the game and the film at the same time, and there are so many things you could build at the same time. My dream is combining the two, and making a property that you can share all the assets across everything taking place.

Continuing our series of excerpts from the interviews we conducted for Variety's videogame impact report, here's a big chunk of my conversation with "Penny Arcade" creators Mike "Tycho" Holkins and Jerry "Gabe" Krahulik. For those who don't know, Penny Arcade is the number one web comic about videogames and has also spawned a huge consumer videogame show, merchandise, and marketing materials. Basically, Holkins and Krahulik are the top commentators and satirists of the art form.

Previous videogames impact report interviews with "Metal Gear Solid" creator Hideo Kojima and Bungie Studios CEO Harold Ryan are already online. More will be coming soon.

[And for the record, this is the picture Mike and Jerry provided of themselves. I'm not sure if they're f*cking around and seeing if a mainstream media outlet will run a picture of Jerry holding an Xbox 360 controller upside down and Mike using a PSP as if it's a console controller without noticing, or if it's just a joke for our readers. Either way, I'm amused.]

For those of our readers who aren’t intimately familiar, can you tell me about how Penny Arcade got started?

Mike: We started the comic [in 1998] because of a contest in a Next-Gen magazine. They were searching for a cartoon to run. Jerry and I were roommates working on a bunch of different comic projects, superhero-type stuff. I made a couple of these videogame comics just for fun and entered and he saw them and wrote a few more and we ended up submitting five or so.

We did not win the contest. But we had fun making them and we thought they were good so we thought people should see them. So shopped we shopped them to all the big gaming sites at the time

Jerry: Of course our idea back then of what was a big gaming site was pretty different. There was nothing like IGN.

We had about given up until Loonygames decided to run it. After that run, we did one every Monday. The next Monday would come and they just asked for another one. We had no intention of making more. It’s just that people wanted to see them and out of politeness, we kept doing it. Eventually we bumped up from one to two to three and then we moved to our own site.

Was there a point along the way where you could feel this turning from a side hobby into a full-time business?

Mike: The lines between those two things are a blur to us. What we have is something that’s both hobby and job. I didn’t detect a firm delineation where I said, “We crossed the threshold now we’re entrepreneurs.” What happened is we got approached by one of the big content aggregators to sell advertising on our site. They said, “We can pay you for your website.” That’s when we realized it could be a job. Of course, that went south extremely fast when the dot-bomb happened months later.

We had quit our jobs in the interim period, which was really smart. Now we had no checks coming in and no jobs, so we decided to switch the comic to be donation-supported.

That was antithetical to the spirit of the ‘Net at that time. Nowadays, donation drives are not strange for small press. At the time, though, this was Satanic.

But it worked?

Mike: It did. It kept us going for a long time until we chose to switch to a mild advertising model where we would only accept two advertisers for the entire month total. We would negotiate with those people ourselves and try to find a happy medium of products we thought were good.

What made you switch to that business model?

Jerry: What happened was we met Robert [Khoo, president of operations and business development]. He came to us shortly after we decided to stop doing donations. He was working as a consultant for a game company. His idea was have them advertise on Penny Arcade. He was a fan and knew what Penny Arcade could be. He offered us a free lunch.

After talking for about an hour, he realized we were idiots with no idea what we had business-wise. He said, “I’m going to quit my job and work for you guys for free for three months. If I don’t make myself a salary and make you guys more money, I will leave. It’s been years now.

Now you have other revenue streams like merchandise and the Penny Arcade Expo show. How do you manage that little multi-media empire? Where do you put most of your attention?

Jerry: In our opinion, none of the other stuff matters if the comic isn’t good. The only reason our merchandise sells is people like the comic. The only reason people came to PAX the first couple of years is that they liked the comic. Everything we do still really hinges on the comic. Anybody we hire or bring into the company, their job is to focus on other things so that we don’t have to worry about them.

What about the new game [“Penny Arcade Adventures: On the Rain-Slick Precipice of Darkness”]? That must have taken your attention away from the comic?

Jerry: The game was definitely a big time sink. Most of the time, our other projects have tended to be comic books we make for game companies as advertising. Those take a few weeks, but really Penny Arcade was still the main focus. When the game happened, that really took priority and took up a huge chunk of both our time quite a while.

Mike: The comic is the most stable part of our jobs. It’s the kind of thing where everything else revolves around it. It has very specific times when it needs to be written and drawn. We complete other projects as we get to them, by and large.

Beyond the comics, your site also features you guys blogging about videogame issues a lot. Do you consider that a side project as well? Or is it integral to what Penny Arcade is?

Jerry: When we started, it seemed expedient to have our own archive of the strip. Eventually, we bought the domain ourselves, which was very exciting at the time. We set up a site, but our HTML knowledge was such that we could make tables, but didn’t understand how to balance them. We had these menu items on the right, but the header and footer we liked made this space on the left side of the page that looked weird with nothing in it. So I started to write posts, sometimes about videogame news, sometimes about the comic, sometimes just about weird stuff

Another reason is that gaming culture is pretty immediate. It moves quickly from day to day. It moves quicker than we can catalog it with three strips a week.

Given that you can’t be as immediate in your comics as most blogs are, how do you decide what topics to address and what to say? What role does Penny Arcade serve in the world of videogame blogs that didn’t exist when you started?

Jerry: We always try to make our position either unique or at least funny. A lot of times it feels to me like we are on the opposite side of the mass gamer community talking on the forums. But something that PAX taught me is there is this massive majority that just isn't vocal. It’s the vocal minority that posts on those threads.

Now that Penny Arcade is so popular, do videogame companies try to curry good favor? Do you get sent every new game and system for free?

Mike: I think people know better than to try to manipulate us. If we even think a person is trying to manipulate us, they know the penalties are grave. They can end up in the comic.

[Notes that they don’t get sent much stuff for free.] I do think paying for your game helps what we do. Getting it for free has got to color your impressions. I think it’s OK that we’re not on every mailing list and we don’t get every game.

It’s been a big thing recently about how some game reviewers wanted to mimic the experience of the average player. They had everything under the sun to do that except buying their own game

Getting back to the “Penny Arcade” game, how did that come about?

Jerry: We had met a few of these guys before they became [developer] Hothead. We had gotten to know them personally and when they ended up breaking away and forming an independent studio, they approached us even before they announced company. They had worked with IP before and were able to make interesting games out of other people’s products.

We weren’t entirely sure we wanted to do it at first. We said we would do it only if we had tremendous control. I wouldn’t have signed for something that looked like Penny Arcade but was motocross. It had to be something we could all agree on.

Mike: [Jerry] said would have been fine with an eight-bit looking RPG with a great story that was basically just text. I would have been happy with 3d brawler.

So you had to compromise on something that’s not what either of you wanted?

Jerry: The story of Penny Arcade is the meeting of our two minds. Both of us giving in just enough to make the other person willing to stay and work with them.

And are you happy with how the game came out?

Jerry: We don’t look at anything we have done and say “fuck yea.” We’re artists and nerds. It’s not a part of our makeup. I never sit back from computer and say, “How do I top that shit?”

That said, the game is fucking awesome.

And it’s an episodic game, so you’re doing more, right?

Mike: We’re obligated to make three more. To be honest, it ‘s been way harder than either of us had anticipated.

But I’m glad we did it and excited to make the next one better and then the one after that. I don’t know if I knew what I know now if I would have agreed to it. It’s so hard. I cant believe people do that regularly.

So does it give you more appreciation for the videogame developers you write about and sometimes make fun of on Penny Arcade?

Mike: Oh yeah. No question.

Penny Arcade Expo is coming up and from what I hear it’s going to be much bigger than before. Do you play a big role in planning it?

Jerry: Our role is to be cultural ambassadors for PAX. Most of our PAX work is super high concept. But the show itself is pretty much us acting as that connection between the show and attendees.

Mike: As an example, a few months ago one of our ad guys came and said that a few of the companies wanted two story booths. We decided that just wasn’t right. We want to keep that sort of thing out of the exhibition hall.

Can any company exhibit? Or do you decide who can come and who doesn’t, just like with advertisements on the site?

Jerry: We turn down lots of exhibitors. Our standards are slightly looser than for advertisers on the site. But not by much.

[Unlike E3 and GDC], PAX is not for the industry. That’s the difference between ourselves and them. We’re not delivering them a “captive audience.”

Here's the second in our series of interviews conducted for Variety's videogames impact report. As promised, I'm providing transcripts here on The Cut Scene of some of the most interesting interviews we did for that special issue. First was Leigh Alexander's talk with "Metal Gear Solid" creator Hideo Kojima. Now here's an excerpt from my chat with Bungie CEO Harold Ryan. Note that this interview was conducted before E3, so there's no mention of the non-announcement controversy.

Has Bungie been working on "Halo" games non-stop for pretty much the past decade until the release of "Halo 3" last fall? Was there ever a chance to even take a break and work on other projects in that time?

We were always in pre-production and concepting future titles while developing current ones. With a small break, the studio was always moving onto one or two new games when shipping another.

We had several internal game pitches that went to playable game prototypes that were non-"Halo" games and non-first person shooters. They either weren’t compelling enough or the monster that was "Halo" needed all the resources, so they were set aside.

Was there always pressure from Microsoft to do another "Halo?" Did you guys at Bungie always want to do those sequels?

From Microsoft's point of view, Bungie was succeeding at "Halo," so having us continue it made sense.

From Bungie's point of view, "Halo" was the baby of the studio. We raised it, cared for it, and nurtured it. We built it because we loved it. Closing out the story with "Halo 3" and finishing the trilogy was important to us. But when we shipped "Halo 1," it certainly wasn’t our goal to make two more versions.

There were open questions we wanted to answer ourselves that drove us to "Halo 2" and then we had some stuff farther along just sitting on paper that was the beginning of "Halo 3." We did pretty much know  we were doing "Halo 3" when "Halo 2" shipped.

Unlike some other big videogame franchises, you guys did get a few years between "Halo" games. Did Microsoft ever pressure you to put them out even faster?

[Microsoft] look[s] at Halo as money and more Halo equals more money. If I could come up with a "Halo" game every year, they’d be happy to take it. I think that would be a mistake.

We always pride ourselves in pushing our games to the point where a lot of people still playing for at least a couple of years thanks to the DLC and the community.

Even now we're sustaining the game, managing the community, making multi-player maps. We’ve got a good 30-40 people working on it for a full year after we ship the game.

A Bungie game to us is high quality, fun to play, and we maintain and support it. All Bungie games have community features built in and around them. Sustaining it is part of what makes the game a Bungie game.

Do you get any financial benefit from that? Do you get any cut of Xbox Live subscription revenue for how many people are playing "Halo 3?"

From a business point of view, we don’t get anything directly out of people being on Xbox Live. We make most of our money from sales directly. For us, it’s about keeping the Bungie fan community happy.

Let's talk about the divestiture from Microsoft. When did that process first start, if only as an idea? And why did you want to do it?

The discussion goes back three or four years. The reasons for it are a mix. For one thing, any time you’re owned by someone you have less at least perceived control of what you do. It's harder to maintain your identity. One thing important for the Bungie ... is needing to have that sense of team where you look around the room and say "I'm part of Bungie."

Microsoft did allow a fair amount of freedom to maintain that culture while inside. But it got harder and harder over time. We had to figure out how to build and retain bungie as a place where top creatives would want to come and work and be part of the team.

Another reason was the pressure to stick with Halo. We can still make "Halo" games and we still are working on "Halo" games. But there is more latitude for us to put our focus on other IP, other universes, other things.

We wanted to get that push back where we could feel we’re going to really lay it on the line and push to come up with the next best thing in entertainment. It feels better to do that as an indie.

It certainly seems like the trend in the industry is the opposite -- that successful developers get acquired by publishers and stay there. It seems like it's the only financially viable option, in fact. So what's different for Bungie than so many other big name developers?

The three studios I know the acquisition of well are Lionhead, Bungie and Bioware. In all those cases, it came down to the fact that the core competency of the studio was making great games. It got to the point where the leads of the studios were creative leads and just weren’t interested in running HR anymore or accounting and finance. The other issue is to make sure you come up with a foundation to sustain your burn rate. If you ship a game every three years, the intervening years can be a long time to cover costs.

But there are a couple of things about Bungie that make us somewhat unique. One is that Bungie has a strong sense of team. Nobody is taking a few bucks off every unit because of a special deal.

Another is that we have a strong finance group in from day one. I didn’t go into the divestiture deal untilwe  had a financial plan that could keep us going.

So in the past year do you see a difference at Bungie?

Having seen Bungie internal and external to Microsoft, as it's structured now I think the creative energy is much more enhanced by being external.

Of course, if we mess it up for the next 10 years, I'm sure we’ll have to find alternate funding.

It was really easy when we working on "Halo" one, two and three to put other projects away. Every studio that starts out with one hit game has the same growing pains. You borrow one guy and another and the next thing you know the original concept doesn't have enough resources and you kill it.

We're making that process better. Now we have a full concept team running throughout the production ofthe  other two games we're running right now internally. We're not making a bet on any one game keeping us afloat.

Was negotiating the divestiture deal distracting for you or Bungie as a whole while working on "Halo 3?"

My point of view and honest belief was that it was the best way to ensure the highest quality of "Halo 3" that we would achieve. It was the best way to attract new talent and retain it in studio. But managing that was a second job for me. It was another 40 hours a week for two-and-a-half years

So when you were hiring or retaining people in the past few years, they knew Bungie would be leaving Microsoft?

Yes.

Do you see Bungie's decision to leave Microsoft as part of a broader issue about developers getting more independence and respect as creative talent?

... The fact is there’s so much to compete with in a development studio owned by a publisher when you're trying to get innovative mindshare. The big corporate game publishers that own lots of studios are more driven by their fiscal year and other things like that than the the crazy guy or team sitting there going, "Give me three more months and this’ll be perfect.” To do that, they're going to have to get back to where Bungie is now.

Some of the publishers that figure out how to actually tell their board to wait three months or stay out of it will find it's just as profitable. If you want to get creative people doing their best work... Well, the thing attracted me is that people aren’t here for the paycheck. They're here to make something awesome. They're here to see their best creative work partnered with that of their peers and turned into a great game. That requires an independent identity.

And you're confident that will result not only in great games, but a successful business?

We’ll see. I do believe it’s about having the right people. Bungie has collected all the right people so we can ship high quality software on a reasonable schedule. Hitting that cycle and hitting the software quality bar doesn’t matter until you have a core game that’s awesome. On the other hand, you need to have all sides working together so it's not an amazing game idea that crashes all the time. Getting all that together so your games are reliably a positive experience for consumers as well as an innovative and amazing experience is a tough feat.

[Ryan's answers were only edited for space and grammar. However I did alter some of my questions to help this excerpt flow better.]

Yesterday Variety released our Videogame Impact Report, complete with a list of 40 people who have had a big impact on the industry in the past year in various ways. There was only one person from the political arena: Leland Yee, the California state senator who has been a leading figure to pass legislation banning the sale of violent games to anyone under 18.

Today I got the only e-mail I have received from somebody complaining they didn't make the list: Anti-videogame violence crusader, media figure, and lawyer (if he doesn't lose his license) Jack Thompson, who sent me this rather peeved one-line e-mail:

Mr. Fritz, I'm not sure how you can include Leland Yee and not include me.

I'm just touched that Jack cares what Variety thinks. (and yes, I'm assuming it's really him; I have no reason not to).

Update: Jack left a comment calling me a "knucklehead."

As promised, all week we'll be providing transcripts of some of the interviews conducted for Variety's just released videogames impact report. First up is "Metal Gear Solid" impresario Hideo Kojima. And who better to interview him than "Metal Gear" player, Variety critic, Kotaku news editor and SexyVideogameLand proprietor Leigh Alexander? Here's her conversation with Kojima:

How do you define your goals as a director? 

I don't really set specific goals. I just want to continue my career and create games as a game designer until the day I die. Games are unique, fluid media, which evolves with technologies and times. I am going to keep absorbing cutting-edge technologies and keep current and try to always be one step ahead. Someday I hope games will be recognized as a "subculture" which stays with people and the times.

As a game critic, I've always felt that MGS as a series had a purpose outside of "just being a game." Was that your intention?

I don't think every game needs to have a purpose outside of "just being a game." But when I create games, I do hope that it serves a purpose higher than just being a game.

When I was a child, computer games did not exist. In my case, movies, comics, novels and music from around the world supported me and helped make me who I am. These mediums encouraged me, taught me, healed me and sometimes even saved me. Now I am creating games, hoping to return the favor.

I was lucky to have met good people, read good books, watched good movies and listened to good music. They made me who I am. Therefore, I hope that people will treasure the games I create and it will shape them in a beneficial way. 

What impact would you like Snake's finale in MGS 4 to have on fans, and on the industry?

The heroes in most animations and movies don't age. They are often immortal. Snake, on the other hand, has aged with the times. I made him this way because of the unique characteristics of the game medium. Snake is a fictional character, but at the same time he represents the players themselves because of the interactive nature of games.

This is very different from other types of entertainment mediums in which you just watch or listen. Therefore, Snake’s memories become the players own journey. In that sense, I believe that interactive games are somewhat similar to live shows that reflect the signs of the times. Therefore, this allowed me the opportunity to bring the character of Snake to life and make the story more realistic by showing signs of his aging.

One decade has passed since the release of Metal Gear Solid. I believe that fans have shared these past 10 years with Snake. The final story of Snake equals closure for these fans. Therefore, the Snake that has existed over the past 10 years could have only existed during this time.

I would like you to think that this good-bye to Snake is a good-bye to this era and represents closure to your old self. If there ever were to be a new Snake (might have a different name), he will be a Snake for a new era. 

Whenever I write about you, I usually theorize that you are influenced by postmodernist authors like Haruki Murakami. Do you see yourself this way?

I am afraid that I haven't read too much of Mr. Haruki Murakami's works. But if you are talking about post-modernism in the sense of antithesis to modern literature, I think I am influenced by such writers. 

It is true that I created MGS as an antithesis to current games and trends. I tried to create something new and unique that does not fit in the existing genres and categories. If I were to pick a few American writers, I think Paul Auster, Phillip Kindred Dick and Kurt Vonnegut are good examples.

I recall reading once that you said it was important to have Raiden in the story, since he appeals to female fans more than Snake does. Personally, I love Snake and Big Boss. I mean, Raiden is OK, but Snake is the best. I cried like a baby at the end of MGS 4.

I'm honored that women feel that way!

Today's issue of Daily Variety features our Videogames Impact Report, an annual look at the industry, some big trends, and key figures. There's a good overview of the whole special right here.

(As you might guess, it was supposed to run during E3, but got delayed due to some bureaucratic reasons.)

It features a lead article (by yours truly) about the balance of power between developers and publishers in the industry and questions whether recent moves like Bungie's defection from Microsoft and new contracts for top talents like Ken Levine and the heads of Infinity Ward and Blizzard signal any major shifts. If you're interested in the article, which features insights from people including Levine and Bungie CEO Harold Ryan, check it out here. (Nifty graphic on the right was made for the article)

The main focus of the special, however, is short profiles of 40 key industry players. Obviously you can't help but leave some important people out on any limited list. However, I'd like to think we've assembled a nice broad representation of major folks including developers, publishing execs, media figures, power brokers, and Hollywood types bringing traditional media to videogames and vice-versa (this is Variety, after all). Some of them you may have heard of if you're a gamer and some if you're more of a traditional Hollywood person. But hopefully some are new and interesting to you.

Below are links to everyone on the list and their profiles (some written by me, a few by Variety critic Leigh Alexander, and the rest by other freelancers). I'm also glad to say that we'll be supplementing this coverage by featuring extended excerpts of the interviews we conducted for some of these profiles here on the blog throughout the week. So if any of these names intrigue you, be sure to come back soon.

For now, the names (and brief descriptions of where they work or who they are):

Developers: Lucy Bradshaw and Will Wright ("Spore"); Jon Burton (Traveller's Tales, "Lego Star Wars/Indiana Jones/Batman"); Grant Collier, Jason West and Vince Zampella (Infinity Ward, "Call of Duty"); Hideo Kojima ("Metal Gear Solid"); Ken Levine (2K Boston, "Bioshock"); George Lucas and Haden Blackman (LucasArts, "Force Unleashed"); Lane Merrifield ("Club Penguin"); Shigero Miyamoto (please just know who he is); Mike Morhaime (Blizzard, "World of Warcraft"); Alex Rigopulos (Harmonix, "Rock Band"); Harold Ryan (Bungie, "Halo").

Publishing executives: Steve Chiang (EA Sports); Reggie Fils-Aime (Nintendo); Yves Guillemot (Ubisoft); Kaz Hirai (Sony); Graham Hopper (Disney); Sam and Dan Houser (Rockstar); Sandi Isaacs (Paramount); Bobby Kotick (Activision Blizzard); David Lee (Nexon); Don Mattrick (Microsoft); Shari Redstone (Midway); John Riccitiello (EA); Steve Schnur (EA Music); Martin Tremblay and Kevin Tsujihara (Warner Bros.); Strauss Zelnick (Take-Two).

Hollywood types: Cody Alexander and Derek Douglas (William Morris agents); Paul W.S. Anderson (director); Seamus Blackley (CAA agent); Keith Boesky (independent agent); Jerry Bruckheimer (movie/game producer); Vin Diesel (actor-producer); Steven Spielberg (three game deal at EA); Neil Tiles (president of G4); Thomas Tull (head of Legendary Pictures, co-founder of Brash).

Uncategorizable but fascinating: Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw ("Zero Punctuation"); Jerry Holkins and Mike Krahulik (Penny Arcade); Jamil Moledina (Game Developers Conference); Leland Yee (California State Senator); Martin Zagorsek (NPD).