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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As we all know, Activision Blizzard is killing Vivendi Games' Sierra label and all the crappy, and some of the not-so-crappy, games it was publishing (some might even argue it's keeping a few of the Sierra franchses that are crappy, but that's a separate issue).

But there was one crappy game that was so close to being published, and was literally being manufactured with "Sierra" on the box as the merger happened a few weeks ago, that Activision Blizzard couldn't stop it. And so the final game to go out under the Sierra label is "The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor," a PS2 and Wii game based on the crappy film of the same title. Do I even have to tell you it's terrible?

Sierra, of course, was an awesome publisher back in the '80s, making classic games of my childhood like "King's Quest," "Space Quest," and (when I got a little older) "Leisure Suit Larry." The first time I remember ever laughing at a videogame was definitely a Sierra title. There's a great Wikipedia entry on Sierra that goes from its founding by Ken and Roberta Williams (who made the first ever adventure game with graphics) through its heyday in the '80s to the corporate machinations in the late '90s and early 2000's and eventually being turned into Vivendi Games' label for everything non-Blizzard.

You can be excused if you didn't even know Sierra was making a "Mummy" game. There was no PR around the release that I saw. The Sierra website says the game is coming out in "summer" and that the rating is pending. And according to Metacritic, it has gotten two reviews from gaming websites so far.

But as always when it comes to movie-based games, we're there for you. So just how bad is Sierra's "Mummy" game? In the words of Variety reviewer Tom Chick:

"Tomb of the Dragon Emperor" is two parts "Tomb Raider" clone, one part mindless punch fest, one part shooting gallery, and one part repeating boss battles. The Wii version throws in a few motion-sensing gimmicks (Pull doors! Yank chains! Turn cranks!) for an extra bullet point on the back of the box... If "Tomb of the Dragon Emperor" were a better game, the challenges to upgrade the weapons might have given it some replay value. But that's hard to consider without having much play value the first time around.

Like Atari, the Sierra name has a lot of value and it's possible somebody will pick it up and make it great again. If not, maybe "Mummy" can be erased from the official history.

Those who want more details on how terrible the game is, including the part when you turn into the abominable snowman (my favorite detail for sure), can read the whole review here.

If you're like me, you may have thought that the timed button pressed in "The Bourne Conspiracy" were... a tad bit excessive? Like maybe the developers were so busy making cool action scenes they forgot to give the players something to do until the last minute? If so, you'll probably enjoy this exclusive "behind the scenes" video from Comedy.com's videogame series Glitch in the System:

Currently in the middle of interviewing all the key executives (Bobby Kotick, Bruce Hack, Mike Morhaime) on the ocassion of the biggest merger in videogame history closing, so please excuse light blogging until then. Though I will be posting details on a new schwag giveaway very soon.

Later today I'll have the first of two stories (one for Daily Variety, one for weekly) about the merger up online and I'll also be posting specific news items and interview excerpts here on the blog. Wondering how long the staff at Blizzard are committed to working at Activision Blizzard? What's the deal with Infinity Ward "re-upping?" Whether Sierra projects are going to continue at Activision? How many layoffs are coming? Stay tuned.

Meanwhile, for those interested in the new opportunites for gaming on the iPhone now that the applications store has launched, I highly recommend Kotaku's guide to iPhone games.

Reviewing "The Bourne Conspiracy," I had the weird feeling I wasn't playing so much as getting played.

Not in the figurative sense, but literally... the game was moving along and doing what it wanted and I was almost a passive observer. There are so many interactive cut scenes (push a button on queue to keep the action going) and the fights are so much about hitting the buttons at the rare times when the game is responsive, rather than caught in its animations, that I spent a lot of time just waiting until I had something to do. The level design, similarly, is incredibly directed, constantly pushing you exactly where to go and giving you no options. Superspy Jason Bourne doesn't even have the ability to jump over a police barrier or climb through a window. It's immensely limiting and just doesn't succeed in giving you the feeling of being Bourne.

But that doesn't mean it's a bad game. "The Bourne Conspiracy" does some things very very well. The graphics, sound effects, and visuals are all ultra top notch. The fights in particular look phenomenal. All the time and energy developer High Moon spent working with the "Bourne" movies' fight director Jeff Imada to motion capture different martial arts styles was well worth it, because the action is intense and brutal and real. Though I wish I had more control over the process, initiating a great Bourne takedown move was consistently thrilling for me from the beginning of the game to the end.

(And yes, in the spirit of disclosure, I did finish the whole game, though I had to briefly go down to "trainee" difficulty to get through one incredibly difficult boss fight that was keeping me from finishing the review in time.)

Here in Hollywood, praising a movie's cinematography is usually a polite insult, since it's a way of avoiding discussing bad acting, writing, directing, etc. But in the case of "The Bourne Conspiracy," I mean it as a great compliment. It has the absolute best camera work I've evern seen in a videogame. You can move it, but you never have to. And it simulates the up close shaky camera that Paul Greengrass uses in the last two films but it's never nausea inducing and you can always see exactly what you're doing. Again, the fights are the best example of this. "The Bourne Conspiracy" perfectly captured the fighting scenes from the film without ever compromising the player's view.

Here's an excerpt from my review, now up on Variety.com:

The Bourne Conspiracy" promises gamers the chance to be Jason Bourne, but it's more like the chance to see Jason Bourne and push a few buttons along the way. Developer High Moon Studios did a phenomenal job capturing the look and feel of the "Bourne" books and movies -- everything from the fighting moves to the camera work to the overall mood. But too many of the best moments are almost entirely out of players' control in this heavily scripted and disappointingly unresponsive game. Add in a number of technical glitches, and "The Bourne Conspiracy" will end up being only lightly pursued.

And you can read the whole thing here.

-Sorry Microsoft, but announcing today that you are the first current-gen console to sell 10 million units in the U.S. isn't much to celebrate. As of March, Nintendo has sold 8.8 million Wii's. And it launched a whole year after you guys. Which means it's a safe bet Wii sales will surpass those of the 360 by later this year despite a one-year disadvantage.

As for Xbox Live global membership of over 12 million... that's impressive, but we have no idea how many of those are paying "gold" members who play online and how many are just "silver" members who ocassionally log onto download an XBLA title or something. So, while Microsoft is still obviously was ahead of its competition in online gaming, it's tough to know what to make of that stat.

-Want a reminder of why when Activision merges with Vivendi Games, the combined company is going to be called Activision Blizzard? And why every title from Sierra (let alone Vivendi Mobile and Sierra Online) has to justify its existence to Activision?

Vivendi just released its first quarter earnings (Variety story here), during which 87% of the total revenue for the game division came from Blizzard. And that's without any new releases. So it's basically just "Warcraft" subscriptions and new buyers.

-Despite significant Playtstation 3 growth, Sony is predicting reductions in its game division as the Playstation 2, eight years after it launched, finally fades into obscurity (Variety story on Sony earnings here). But after a fiscal year (ending March 31) in which Sony Computer Entertainment lost $1.2 billion (a $1 billion improvement over last fiscal year), profits will finally rise as software sales keep growing and the loss per-hardware units falls.

In other words, it'll probably be a while until SCE grows revenue again due to the decline of the PS2, but the PS3 is on the verge of no longer being a black hole for profits.

It's worth remembering, folks, that when Sierra says it's delaying the release of "Prototype" until 2009, it's not going to be the publisher actually releasing the game. It wasn't even going to be if the game came out on schedule this fall That's Activision, which is going to merge with Sierra parent company Vivendi Games sometime next month, at which points its management will be in charge.

Officially, they're still two separate companies, but as I've previously reported, Activision management is already taking a look at Sierra's entire development slate and big changes and cuts are expected to happen post-merger. After all, Activision made the deal to get its hands on Blizzard and "World of Warcraft," not Sierra. And it's not like everyone at Sierra is dedicated to future of their business these days, as Martin Tremblay's decision to bolt for Warner Bros. showed.

I don't claim to have any specific insight into what's going on with "Prototype." It could just be that Radical needs more time to get the game into releaseable form. Or it could be that Activision execs have taken a look at the game and had a lot of "notes." But if it's Sierra, and not Activision, that really and truly is deciding that the game should come out next year, it's worth remembering that it's a new management team led by Bobby Kotick that will actually be making that decision.

(Check out my initial impressions of "Prototype" from GDC here.)

It's a tough time to be developing a game for Vivendi Games' Sierra label, the division that makes "normal" videogames -- i.e. AAA, boxed, non-MMO games for PC and consoles. That's because all of the label's titles now have to justify their existence to their soon-to-be corporate masters at Activision.

What does that mean practically? I've had numerous sources tell me that development teams on all of Vivendi's games now have to essentially pitch their projects to Activision executives. Until the merger is technically complete, work proceeds as usual, but once it's over, Activision will start making some decisions. And it seems very unlikely that everything at Sierra will keep going as it has been.

Just like when a new executive teams takes over at a film studio, some projects in development get killed and others get changed as the new folks in charge start establishing their own tastes and corporate priorities.

Vivendi's Blizzard label is, of course, quite safe from all this. The merged company is going to be called Activision Blizzard, after all. So long as "World of Warcraft" keeps printing money faster than the Fed, they'll be left alone by Activision's execs to do as they please.

But the future of the rest of Vivendi Games is quite uncertain. Even though Vivendi proper will retain a majority stake in the merged entity, Activision CEO Bobby Kotick will keep that title and his president of publishing president Mike Griffith remains in charge of all non-Blizzard games.

Activision obviously made the deal to get its hands on the biggest MMO, and really the biggest game, in the industry. Everything else is basically an afterthought. Which leaves all of those making the afterthoughts in an uncertain position.

Titles set to come out this year, like "The Bourne Conspiracy," "Prototype," "Brutal Legend," and "Ghostbusters," are probably fine since they're so far along. But those in development for 2009 and later? They'll all TBD.

Question marks include whether we'll see more games from VIvendi's costly Robert Ludlum license, or if Activision thinks its conflicts with its costly James Bond license; whether there will be a sequel to "Scarface" as expected; whether Activision will put out a sequel to "F.E.A.R." in conflict with Warner/Monolith's "Project Origin" (Vivendi retains rights to the name while Warner kept the underlying ideas); and if we'll see more games starring Crash Bandicoot or Spyro.

Also, will Vivendi's nascent Sierra Online and Vivendi Mobile divisions be allowed to continue?

It's all in Activision's hands now. Which leaves some nervous developers at Sierra.

Still catching up on some previews in the past few weeks of upcoming games I've checked out... this time, it's Sierra's "The Bourne Conspiracy." (Which sounds exactly like the titles of all the books and movies, but is actually original.)

"Bourne" is the first (and definitely not the last) game that Sierra (a division of the soon-to-be-merged with Activision Vivendi) is making as part of an expensive, multi-year license with the Robert Ludlum estate that I first wrote about in Variety in summer of 2005.

The goal is, pretty explicitly, to make Ludlum for Vivendi what Tom Clancy is for Ubisoft -- though it'll be interesting to see whether Activision shares the same goal (more on that issue in a blog post tomorrow or Wednesday).

"Bourne" is, of course, best known to most audiences today for the movies, not the book, but Sierra's license is for the books. Developer High Moon Studios is heavily inspired by the movies and collaborating alot with the talent, though there are some key differences.

Most importantly, gamers will notice that Bourne is not modeled on Matt Damon. The team was considering making a deal with the star, but abandoned that after Damon said at the Cannes film festival last year that he was done with the character. Getting Damon committed to the game when he was no longer committed to the movies would obviously be awkward. (Although -- oops! -- Variety has since reported that Universal has "landed Paul Greengrass and Matt Damon for a fourth "Bourne" movie, even though the director and star seemed ready to wrap it up after three pics.")

But there's lots from the movies. Even though Damon's not involved, Franka Potente is playing her supporting role from "The Bourne Identity" as Marie, which actually strikes me as kind of awkward, but anyway. Film writer Tony Gilroy consulted on the story, which basically tracks "Bourne Identity," but makes all of Bourne's brief flashbacks in the movie fully playable levels, along with some new missions in his past that we haven't seen. Essentially, it's a lot of backstory as we learn more about how Jason Bourne got so f*cked up by the CIA.

The most important collaboration, however, might be with the movies' fight coordinator Jeff Imada, who spent "hundreds of hours" working with High Moon to motion capture all the different fight moves (dozens, if not hundreds) in the game, which are in the exact same style of the movie. Beyond giving Bourne his signature take-down moves using items in the environment, each of the bosses has his (or her?) own unique fighting style designed by Imada.

That's the most important thing because the game is pretty much non-stop action. It's all adrenaline, with basic third person action that we've seen before interspersed with takedowns, which you can pull up when you build up enough adrenaline (or whatever "Bourne's" name for the boost meter is; they all kind of blur together). Not only do they look really cool, but the camera moves in close, with camera angles that mimic the hand-held fast moving camera that director Paul Greengrass used in the second and third "Bourne" films.

All of the takedown moves I saw, which involved using walls, filing cabinets, pens and dry erase boards to take enemies down, along with Bourne's hands and feet, were really impressive. Will they be just as impressive after playing the game for a few hours? Will the shooting and driving -- which seemed fairly standard in the demo I saw -- stand out as much as the hand-to-hand action?And will the multi-player be able to take advantage of the game's signature moves, or in an effort to balance it out will it be a chaotic mess, a la "Stranglehold?"

Those are all the big questions I'm left with leading up to June, when "The Bourne Conspiracy" comes out.

(Oh, and a note to developers: If you want to flatter me during a game demo, tell me that I'm doing a better job than some enthusiast press (IGN, GameSpot, etc.) writers who were there earlier in the day. Sure, you may be transparently flattering me, but it totally worked during "The Bourne Conspiracy" demo, I can't lie.)

"The Spiderwick Chronicles" tie-in game came out on Tuesday, but as far as I can tell, Variety is the first outlet to review it. (Nothing on any of the big gaming sites, no entries on MetaCritic). I understand it's probalby not too popular with the core IGN reader, while an adapatation of a major film release is much more important to Variety. But I'll still pretty happy that Variety is not only competing when it comes to news and reviews of "mainstream" game releases, but taking the lead on videogames with a Hollywood connection.

Here's an excerpt of the review from our crack critic Matt Peckham:

Games based on family movies often look and play like cheaply made quickies, but that's not the case with Sierra's pleasantly bright "The Spiderwick Chronicles," which turns in a surprisingly enjoyable if brief performance. It's mostly a grand Easter egg hunt punctuated by average mini-games and shallow combat, but what the game lacks in boldness it makes up for in wholesome design and rapid-fire pacing. Except for a frustrating patch during the denouement, "Spiderwick" is a well-made tie-in to the Par/Nick fantasy film opening next week and should sell well with fans of the books and pic.

Read the whole thing here.