Each week Jeff Engel and Geoff Brooks contribute Counting Rupees, a column on the business behind gaming:

Apparently, there were not enough word-spreading mouths to begin with, as it only sold 60k copies in its debut month (which includes almost all of May, since it launched May 6^th). Despite what EA's CEO said, this was probably not what EA had hoped for with a game it had collaborated on with the most profitable director in the world. So, what happened?

Can a game spin off into a successful TV series?

Many of us still remember waking up early on Saturday mornings to catch the latest episode of "Captain N: The Game Master" or rushing home after school to watch "The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!" (or if we were lucky enough to be watching on a Friday, "The Legend of Zelda"). While these shows weren't exactly something to write home about, it was certainly exciting to see some of our favorite Nintendo characters come alive in the form of a cartoon. In the last few years the wildly popular Pokemon games have spawned a long-lasting TV show and more recently, a Viva Piñata TV series was launched side-by-side with the game, in what was a moderately successful cross-marketing strategy (the kid's show is still running today and the game posted slow but steady sales, developing somewhat of a cult following). Clearly, there's some precedence for games to become the basis for a TV series, but these have all lacked one basic element that all the games required: interactivity.

So it is with some interest that the LA Times reports that Sci-Fi channel is teaming up with Trion World Network to create (simultaneously!) an MMO and a TV show based on it. Sci-Fi channel president Dave Howe says that it's the "Holy Grail". A subscription-based MMO and a successful television series that are able to successfully leverage each other could certainly be a potential windfall. However, while the details are somewhat scarce at the moment, from what I can glean, there are some major hurdles that this joint venture will need to overcome.

Each week Jeff Engel and Geoff Brooks contribute Counting Rupees, a column on the business behind gaming:
When EA announced that Spore and Mass Effect (PC) would have a DRM program that did performed online verification every 10 days, it generated a massive backlash amongst the gaming community. Many people, who were originally excited about Spore and Mass Effect, now claimed that they would not purchase the games, solely because of the DRM. To be honest, I'm no fan of DRM either. It basically treats all legal customers as potential criminals, and seems futile anyway, as anyone with an internet connection can typically find ways around the DRM. The only people it probably deters are those with little technical savvy and who just want to share a game they bought with their friends and family. The amount of actual sales that would be lost to this is probably pretty limited. With all that said, I'm glad that EA has backed off this new DRM and scaled it back to just an initial online verification. Given the current state of PC gaming as well as the traditionally more "accepted" versions of DRM (like the initial online verification), however, I didn't find this new DRM to be all THAT much worse, particularly with some slight improvements to it, such as allowing a manual verification and extending the timeframe for re-verification slightly (say, to 30-60 days instead of every 10).

The reason for this has a lot to do with what's been going on with PC gaming in the last few years. While the "death" of PC gaming has been talked about for years, it isn't quite here. The landscape is just shifting. While the total NPD sales for each year has been decreasing, other avenues of making money have been developed. For instance, subscription-based games (mostly MMOs, but also games available on GameTap), cheaper more casual downloadable games (eg, PopCap Games), and even free, ad- or feature-driven games (eg, Dungeon Runners, Battlefield Heroes, Quake Zero) make up an ever increasing portion of PC-based revenue. Thus, the actual retail sales are taken up mostly by a few casual games, MMO starter kits or expansions, and maybe the occasional shooter or RTS game. Take, for example, the most recent NPD PC numbers for the week of May 4-10:

Each week Jeff Engel and Geoff Brooks contribute Counting Rupees, a column on the business behind gaming:
According to several "analysts" last week, the successful launch of Grand Theft Auto IV threatened to sink the box office returns for Iron Man. The thinking went that since the game and the movie both target primarily the same demographic (males 18-29), that demographic would stay home and play the game instead of going to see the movie. While it's impossible to declare with complete certainty, as Variety did, that GTA IV had absolutely no effect on Iron Man's opening (with $104.2M in domestic receipts, $201M worldwide, and a release date for a sequel already announced), whatever effect it may have had was clearly not enough to significantly impact the movie. But clearly, many had predicted that the game could adversely affect box office receipts. It makes me wonder -- have we ever seen this sort of effect before?

Each week Jeff Engel and Geoff Brooks contribute Counting Rupees, a column on the business behind gaming:
In my last column I suggested that, if Microsoft is to make a Wii-like controller, it should still continue to focus on the "traditional" types of games that have so far made the 360 a success, because Nintendo had already basically wrapped up the "casual" crowd. I also mentioned that the only Wii games that are apparently selling are Nintendo games and some casual games. And with that in mind, the New York Times published an article on Monday detailing that, while the Wii hardware is selling well, even seemingly popular Wii software still has some trouble continuing to sell to the Wii audience.

Each week Jeff Engel and Geoff Brooks contribute Counting Rupees, a column on the business behind gaming:

With the Wii's apparent runaway success this generation, there's no doubt that both Sony and Microsoft are trying to figure out just what they can do – either in this generation or the next – to tap into the formula that's worked so well for Nintendo. Sony, in a seemingly obvious attempt to blunt the impact of Nintendo's newly styled controller, added motion sensitivity to their controllers before the PS3 launched. More recently, there have even been rumors that Microsoft may be prepping their own version of the Wii Remote to launch later this year for the 360. Is this really the answer Microsoft is looking for to combat the Wii?

There are a lot of problems with this, although the common "doomed console peripheral" theory actually may be the least of them. The success of Guitar Hero and Rock Band has proven that, at least when bundled with an attractive game, console owners are just fine with buying new controller peripherals for their systems.

No, the biggest problem for Microsoft here is simply a matter of audience. Microsoft has been working hard on wooing the "casual" audience, and has only rarely succeeded. Even a "hardcore" game like Halo 3 probably wouldn't sell 7.5 million copies without some "casual" players. But a quick look at the top-selling software for each system makes it extremely obvious how different the audiences already are for the two systems.

Each week Jeff Engel and Geoff Brooks contribute Counting Rupees, a column on the business behind gaming:

When Guitar Hero 3 launched last year it was an immediate success, selling out at a fairly quick pace throughout the holiday season. Following just behind it was Rock Band, selling very well, but not nearly as quickly as Guitar Hero. So far, all versions of Guitar Hero III have sold about 9.1M copies, versus just roughly 1.5M for Rock Band. Of course, part of the discrepancy lies in the fact that Rock Band launched on two platforms while Guitar Hero 3 launched on four, but that is about to be remedied with Harmonix's recent announcement of Rock Band for Wii. While Rock Band was a more ambitious game and representative of an evolution of the music game, it did seem like Activision may have made the right choice in buying the Guitar Hero publisher (and thus the Guitar Hero brand), but not the developer. With so much brand awareness already built into Guitar Hero, was there any way that Harmonix could possibly top the original creation that it no longer owned the rights to?

Each week Jeff Engel and Geoff Brooks contribute Counting Rupees, a column on the business behind gaming:

Apparently, 2008 is the year of the PS3. After what most consider a very shaky first year, the media is abuzz with a comeback for the company that was once king of consoles. EGM's March issue proudly proclaims on its cover that it's "The Revenge of the PS3". EDGE's December issue was entitled "The Empire Strikes Back" and even Joystiq's PS3 Fanboy has given us 10 reasons why the PS3 is back in the swing of things. Some analysts have proclaimed that the PS3 will do at least as well as the 360 in 2008, and others have the PS3 edging out the 360 by 2010 or even the Wii by 2011. Clearly, everyone is pointing to 2008 being a turning point of sorts for the Cell-powered beast. But is it actually true?

Let's focus on, at least initially, Sony's battle against the 360. Certainly, the PS3 has a lot of things going for it. Blu-ray has officially won the next-gen DVD war; upcoming games, such as Metal Gear Solid 4, Killzone 2, and LittleBigPlanet show tremendous potential; and it has seemingly found a price point that people are willing to pay (as they did originally for the 360). In the US, at least so far this year, Sony has managed to outsell the 360 according to January and February NPD figures. But will it be enough?

Each week Jeff Engel and Geoff Brooks alternate in contributing Counting Rupees, a column on the business behind gaming:

Gamers were outraged in recent weeks by a rumor that Xbox Live Arcade royalties were being cut in half for developers; in fact, some developers were reportedly considering moving development from XBLA to the PlayStation Network because of the cuts. It was less clear why Microsoft would do something like this: At first glance, it appears to stifle independent game development and reduce the overall quality of XBLA as a platform. Clearly, Microsoft is just being greedy, right?

Perhaps, but it's certainly not as clearcut as it seems at first glance. Although any changes to the royalty structure will mean changes -- and potentially significant ones -- for XBLA, they may still be beneficial in the long run for some people, possibly even increasing indie development.

As is often the case with rumors, there's more to the story than a simple royalty cut. Let's think first about what the costs and benefits of the changes are to both developers and Microsoft, after which we can decide why the action might have been taken in the first place and what it all means to us as gamers. From a developer's perspective, the cost is pretty clear: Up to 35% of the total revenues of a game. Does the developer receive any benefits? Yes, some: As reported, developers will no longer have to pay for features like worldwide ratings or localization, which both reduces costs and potentially provides access to a larger international market. And from Microsoft's standpoint, the costs and benefits are essentially reversed: It no longer has to pay the royalties, but it does need to provide some additional services.