Hollywood bible Variety has sent a warning out to the film industry: games are serious competition, and they're making money more efficiently, which is more to the point.

The venerable film magazine points to increasing growth in revenue and the lack of star power to drive up costs as factors standing the games industry in good stead – two factors the film industry cannot boast. A recent article starts:



If these sentiments (and figures) were coming from a games publication, the industry could contentedly pat itself on the back at its success. Coming from a the journal of the film industry, however, it reads more like Hollywood kicking its own arse.

The magazine makes an example of the blockbuster Spider-Man films, pointing to production costs that spiralled from $140 million to $200 million and finally $258 million with each successive film. In comparison, the article notes, "Yes, some game producers and designers get big bonuses and raises, while the developers have to keep raising the technological bar. But that's nothing compared to the ballooning effects that budgets and star salaries have on a summer tentpole."

Tentpole? Eh? What kind of idiot-jabbering is this? According to doubletongued, "...something, such as a commercial undertaking, a story franchise, or a fictional character, that serves as primary support (for a company, television program, etc.), especially a blockbuster movie which compensates for a studio’s flops."

In games, there is currently only a handful of names that could command an audience, with Nintendo's Miyamoto topping the list, followed by the likes of Microsoft/Lionhead's Peter Molyneux and Will Wright, the man behind The Sims and Spore.

THQ's Tracy Williams, marketing manager the WWE games, chimes in, saying, "There are definitely economies of scale from using the same group of experienced people, the same engine, and repurposing some assets. It takes a significant investment to start, but ultimately, (franchise sequels) can be a little cheaper than other games."

In other words, while sequels are a pricey business for Hollywood, they're efficient for games. This is borne out by nine out of 10 of this year's top games in the US being sequels, compared to only five out of ten films being follow-ups. While as gamers we might find that depressing, studios clearly see this as profitable.

The general manager for EA's Tiburon Studio, home of the Madden NFL franchise, Philip Holt, points out, "In videogames, unlike movies, the expectation is that almost everything we put into development will make it to production and should have a good shot at being a commercial success. That forces us to gravitate toward games that have, or could have, a fan base that clamours for more and more."

In Hollywood, by contrast, even iconic properties can spend years in production limbo – as happened with the last Superman film.

^{Source: Variety}