He's right but he's also being a hypocrite. This game exists because the movie was being made. When you take a movie and say, "okay, we want a game that follows along the lines of what we're doing with the film," then you're pretty much killing the game from a creative aspect. You're asking the developers to take your vision and then find some game-play elements to wedge in around it. That almost never works with video games.

yeah and for most movie based games the developer has to pay millions for the licences so that there is not even money left for the development in most cases. it's like "hey we have 10 million for the game (except marketing) but 9 million are for the licence!

Sh*t I  thought all this time that the movie studios would have paid for the dev of the games to help promote the movie 

well I dunno but I felt the second movie was "not as good" as the first one (because the novelty bonus helped the first movie not because it was better than the second one) and I never touched the game.... so you do the math abrams.

Yup lost two ticket sales that hurt the movie so badly

Star Trek 2009 Worldwide box office gross: $385.6M http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek11.htm 

Star Trek Into Darkness (2013) Worldwide Box Office gross: $465.3M http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek12.htm

So that represents a 21% increase in box office gross. I reckon that probably means even inflation adjusted star Trek 2013 made more. Yes the US gross went down (dumbasses) but the international box office essentially doubled (good taste).So the only possible place where a shit game tie in may have affected it's box ofice taking would be in the USA, which WOULD make the US audience dumbasses.

I'm a Star Trek fan, but I don't like JJ Abrams Star Trek. Its like he is changing it into a space fantasy instead of keeping it science friction.

Indeed! At least he's not directing the third one, let's see what he can do to for Star wars instead.