http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/ga ... -interview

I've yet to try the HR demo

The problem is that games are costly to produce and they cannot afford too many flops. It costs millions for a game, and even if it sells $100 million they may still not make a spectacular profit depending on the console levy etc.

There's so much money in gaming now it's going the way of hollywood with sequel after sequel and very few new ideas, it's all down to risk mitigation, consequently the games industry will homogenise in the same way hollywood has, producing one $300 million CGI polished turd (Avatar/Transformers) after another every summer and christmas.

Well, I know some of the developers are very well off these days, but I'm assuming that isn't the norm, and maybe only a result of something like COD: MW2.

Maybe the developers/publishers/console makers should consider a few renegotiations for the greater good...

Hollywood is playing safe with either known directors or sequels/prequels etc. The independent studios are still producing new content but they are story driven rather than effects driven.

You're very unlikely to see an American independent film in a cinema, even lower budget stuff is generally studio financed like the Saw series, which is Sony It's unfortunate as there are some exceptional films being made in the US outside of Hollywood (Every Good Thing To Rust, Blood Car, Brick, No Country For Old Men).

A lot of the financing is done through pre sales for TV and DVD rights. That way the producer gets paid for the costs of production upfront, and the risks can be minimal.

That's right and it's becoming more popular, I heard a story about a chain of video shops in Japan financing the odd low budget US/European films to get exclusivity in Japan, thus cutting out any (slim) chance of cinema release.

I've done a review of Heavy Rain in the Games subforum. It's completely different and has a different pace. It's a welcome change to the high-adrenaline action of MW2.

Yes but that only really happens with titles that cannot get cinema distribution. Many films like to try and have a small window in the cinemas at least. Though exclusivity after cinema does get some on TV a lot faster.

Out of seventy or so British films that had a cinema release in 2008 only two made money (Summerstown by about a £1000 and Kidulthood) so cinema isn't always a financially viable option. Take Summerstown for example, the budget was around £500,000, to make cinema prints and marketing material you're looking at possibly a million pounds which is twice the original budget, of course Shane Meadows is lucky as the BFI will pretty much give him whatever he wants, and perhaps rightly so.

Basically the majority of films won't get a cinema release, not only because of the costs of physically producing the prints but because they won't get into multiplexes because they are owned by hollywood studios.

It's a minefield, and most filmmakers now will know when they start production if they are making for DVD or cinema (or even cable movie channels like sci-fi, occasionally a distributor may decide to put an "exceptional" film made for DVD into the cinema (Paranormal Activity) but it's rare.