http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9934&Itemid=59

By Tom Ivan

“The games industry ten years ago was a toy business in the minds of most consumers,” Riccitiello told the Financial Times following a meeting with movie executives.

“The buzz in Hollywood, which I heard from some Hollywood folks . . . is people are worried whether Iron Man the movie is going to get killed by Grand Theft Auto the game. I don’t think I’ve ever heard of that before.” Last month Janco Parters analyst Mike Hickey predicted that GTA IV would soften Iron Man box office sales.

“There is more interest today from Hollywood to make movies out of our games than there is interest in our industry to make games out of their movies,” EA’s chief continued. “There’s a big reset happening now.

“The rate of change in this industry is massive… It feels like what movie moguls might have seen in the 1920s and said: ‘Hey, we’ve got talkies now, where is it going?’ I feel like we’ve stepped through a time window where our games are so compelling and seem so real.”

Riccitiello also predicted that games will shortly be ranked as an art form alongside cinema, and stated his belief that EA can become the “one great company” of the interactive entertainment medium.

“I read a book on how every medium creates one great company: animation created Disney, CBS was created by radio, NBC by television.

“Interactive entertainment is going to determine one great company and I think it’s this one. One of the reasons I’ve come back is to try to take it to the next step.”

I'll just say simply this man is wrong on everything he said. EA is not the one big gaming company and games are nowhere as big as movies. If anyone wants me to elaborate I'll be happy to.

I will say that EA is the Michael Bay of movies; very prolific, lots of explosions, not much attention played to either the art or the craft involved, just pumping out hack jobs that will earn them millions.  Unless they change their ways, they'll never be known for the 'great' games -- that is, unless they change their ways, EA will never be known as the Kubrick or Hitchcock of the games industry. 

They'll be lucky to go down in history as the Bruckheimer of games; prolific, many solid titles, but only 1 or 2 exceptional games to their name, not due to lack of talent but due to lack of incentive to move their craft to the next level.

Alrighty Starcraft.

First off, it's his opinion and some analyst that GTAIV will soften up Iron Man's sales. I won't get into it because frankly we'll never know whether it will or not, unless a massive countrywide poll is taken to see if people didn't watch Iron Man because they picked up GTAIV, which won't happen.

Then this quote:

“There is more interest today from Hollywood to make movies out of our games than there is interest in our industry to make games out of their movies,” EA’s chief continued. “There’s a big reset happening now.

This is obviously false. Many game companies survive off making movie tie-in games. There is not however one movie studio that has to survive off making game tie-in movies. Also games based off movie franchises move units. Transformers and SPiderman 3 were two very high selling games last year. Hitman did ok at the box office. I can name numerous examples just like this. In my opinion, games based off movies are higher quality on the whole than movies based off of games.

“The rate of change in this industry is massive… It feels like what movie moguls might have seen in the 1920s and said: ‘Hey, we’ve got talkies now, where is it going?’ I feel like we’ve stepped through a time window where our games are so compelling and seem so real.”

Games don't seem very real at all. In fact games have tackled very few topics that matter to any human being. Movies have tackled them all and continue to innovate year after year. Games are playing catch up and doing a lousy job. Call of Duty 4 is pretty realistic, but it isn't Letters From Iwo Jima, Platoon, Apocalypse Now, Saving Private Ryan or even most mediocre war movies. Apply that to any other genre games and movies share and you'll get the same result.

 Riccitiello also predicted that games will shortly be ranked as an art form alongside cinema, and stated his belief that EA can become the “one great company” of the interactive entertainment medium.

“I read a book on how every medium creates one great company: animation created Disney, CBS was created by radio, NBC by television.

“Interactive entertainment is going to determine one great company and I think it’s this one. One of the reasons I’ve come back is to try to take it to the next step.”

This is just a rediculous statement. Most mediums create many great companies, and gaming has already done that. If one could be picked though, it's obviously Nintendo. They are to gaming what Disney is to animation. This is John Riciteillo puffing his chest out because EA is within months of acquiring Take Two Interactive and nothing more.

Comments. 

http://www.joystiq.com/2008/02/27/katzenberg-video-games-hurting-overall-home-video-market/

Variety's video game blog Cut Scene reports that during a conference call yesterday with analysts that DreamWorks Animation CEO and industry veteran, Jeffrey Katzenberg, partially blamed video games for the paltry performance of Shrek the Third on DVD. Now, let's ignore for five seconds that the third Shrek film was a soulless shell compared to the other installments and take note of a mega Hollywood player like Katzenberg joining the chorus that video games are to blame for an industry's slumping sales.

Don't feel too bad for DreamWorks, it stands to gain a nice chunk of change from its licensing deal with Activision for games based on Kung Fu Panda and the sequel to Madagascar. There is also a second Kung Fu Panda game slated for release in the fall tied to the DVD release. As much as there are mumblings of video games cutting into other media's revenue, Shrek the Third's DVD sales are easily blamed on it being a mediocre film -- but nowadays blaming video games is so much sexier.

I know it's our niche and we want to warp our logic around it, but depth and immersion are two totally different things. Both of which regardless of a video games advantages have not been attained just yet.

Some games have a deep story sure, but how it's delivered is vastly inferior to a superb movies story deliverance. ~ Opinion

Except that delivery is not a disadvantage anymore so than delivery is a disadvantage when reading a book.  If anything, a game media form means you're not limited to the standard 1.5-3 hour time period to tell your whole story.