Top
210°

Warner: Movie tie-in game model "is broken," must 'stand alone'

Warner Interactive president Martin Tremblay has labelled "movie-based games" as part of a 'broken system', and that they "try and distance" from them now.

They keep them separate so the "game stands by itself," like Rocksteady has accomplished with Batman. Warner's game division is still "barely a blip" overall.

Read Full Story >>
strategyinformer.com
The story is too old to be commented.
Titanz1775d ago

Shovelware "sells", so there will always be a need for em. Not to say that movie tie-in games should be bracketed underneath it, but I'm sure "gamers" get the point I'm trying to state.

sonicsidewinder1775d ago (Edited 1775d ago )

They see the truth!

Doesn't mean that they should totally bow out of the games industry though.

What about partnering with TT games for 'Lego Looney Tunes' or something?

Don't remember a good LT game since Buggs Bunny: Lost in Time.

Dark_Overlord1775d ago

"Warner Interactive has about 1,800 employees and typically spends $30 million to $40 million to make its games. The unit expects to have its most profitable year in 2011 and is on track to generate close to $1 billion in sales."

And yet they still say they need online passes to make a profit!!!!

They are expecting to make a billion this year (just from their game division), greed at its worst

Ayepecks1775d ago

He's right. You can't force a movie's timetable on a game, because there's going to be unforeseen scheduling issues with both properties. Plus, the story of a movie is created for what works in cinema, not what works in gaming.

MasterD9191775d ago

Think about how much money has been wasted on crappy movie tie-ins...its a joke.

Save yourself the money that you won't get back by just not making a terrible game...I mean- even if they did follow the scripts of the movies, they could still make a better game than they usually do.

Why do they call them movie tie-ins when most of the time they are different from the actual film its supposed to represent?

Show all comments (7)