Arrrrrrrrrrrrr

[Apologies to the commenters on this thread. I managed to post under Ted's name after doing admin on the site, and so had to delete the post. I can't restore the comments. I'm very sorry. - Dan]

I happened to run across Kotaku's post about Disney's forthcoming MMO "Pirates of the Caribbean" and so naturally my thoughts turned to Keira Knightley...no, sorry, I meant: naturally my thoughts turned to the concept of "properties" and licenses.[fn1] (Actually this is fairly accurate. I'm seriously not a big fan of Keira Knightley specifically, or English posh tottie in general. I lived too long in England. But this is a story for another day...)

My first thought in seeing the announcement--"Capturing the high seas and swashbuckling adventures found in both “Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl” and the upcoming “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest,” players embark on quests for adventure and treasure in an effort to become the Caribbean’s most legendary pirate"--was to groan inwardly. I mean, it's got to be terrible, right? It has all the hallmarks of a disaster: they talk far too much about the other "properties" in the franchise, they use the word "swashbuckling", they invoke the Horatio Alger (or perhaps Horatio Hornblower) mythos of a rags-to-riches rise of your toon that can only mean soul-destroying faction grinding and the mindless XP treadmill in search of the life-affirming "ding".

Of these concerns, the only one that I'm really interested in is the role that licenses and "properties" play in the development of these worlds. We all know the reasons why companies like Disney and LucasArts recycle their existing properties for different formats: they provide brand recognition in a crowded marketplace that is dominated by blockbuster economics where the initial costs of production are high and the consequences of initial failure are disastrous. But this sort of cross-licensing of content is almost always a fiasco. When did you last see a movie-based-on-a-game that was remotely watchable? (Minus 50DKP if you said "Silent Hill") When did you last play a game that was based on a movie "property" that had some redeeming features or was not so deeply crap that you threw is across the room in disgust (Plus 50DKP if you said "KOTOR" or "SW:G" but these are pretty rare, IMO, and where they can be ruined by the economics of "how can we get the maximum return on our license investment?" they will be: the Prosecution calls "SW:G" your honor, the Prosecution rests, your honor). I happened to be looking for a new game for my kids the other day and was trawling through the listings and recommendations on one site, for all PSP games (or was it DS games? whatever). The highest recommended games were all based on unique ideas, designed specifically for the platform and utilizing a new game mechanic ("Katamari", natch) or a wonderful implementation of a well-known mechanic ("Lumines" natch). All the ones based on licenses from other properties had ratings around 1/5 or 2/5.

And yet, and yet...I watched the movie "Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl" with unalloyed delight, and it was based on a theme park ride, for crying in a bucket. Which is perhaps a lesson: the thinner the "property", the less cultural baggage it bears, the easier it is to press into service as nothing more than a brand. It will get people into the theater or into the local games store, but no meaning has attached to the brand beyond "Oh, um, yeah, I know that one: Disney, pirates, the Spanish Main (whatever the hell that might be), big effing cannons and the smell of gunpowder....um, not sure if there is anything else, zombies maybe." Where expectations arise from the nature of the existing "property"--where it's a beloved film series with its place in the cultural apparatus and lives of millions of people, each generating their own meaning from their projections into the "property"--then attempts to turn them into a different cultural artifact are gonna be met with resistance.

Perhaps the Pirates MMO will be great. Like all kids who never grew up I long to be a privateer with ribbons in my beard and a letter of marque from Queen Elizabeth. All I ask is that they leave Keira Knightley out of it. Johnny Depp I'm cool with, though.

------
[fn1: I've put "property" or "properties" here in quotes, to signal that I'm using it in the way that Hollywood and game producer types would use it, ie the disparate legal interests that cohere around a particular type of idea that can be turned into a "license". The legal basis for this is deeply weird, and often undersupported. But it's a reality of the industry and needs to be treated as such. It just shouldn't be confused with property. The quotes around "property" are not meant to be scarequotes. I could equally have labeled this usage as property' or property* or property1, but that's even clunkier.

Comments

[Arnold Hendrick]

1.

We all know that a good book doesn't necessarily make a good movie (unless the book is written with that in mind, of coursre). Similarly, neither a book nor a movie make a good game, or vice versa. The devil is ALWAYS in the details - people respond to HOW the book is written, or the movie presented, or the game mechanics work. There is no rule that says these need align.

On the other hand, if you CAN write your book, or make your movie, or build your game so that it embodies the spirit of the property, you'll do better than an equivalent product that lacks such a property.

The nice part about any entertainment industry, including games, is how totally original things CAN emerge a success stories even without a property attached. City of Heroes / City of Villains from Cryptic is a wonderful example of this.

[Andy Havens]

2.

"Dune II" was a great game, and the father of the modern RTS genre. The "X-Wing" and "Tie Figher" games rocked very, very hard. The recent "James Bond" console games have been very good. There have been very good "Star Trek" games, both in the DOS days, and some of the starship figher sims. "Warriors" got good reviews, as did "Matrix: Neo's something-or-other." "Kingdom Hearts" is all about franchise, and it is great.

I think that, in general, using a franchise tends to be a crutch. But there are plenty of other crutches, too.

[Terry]

3.

The single-player version of PoTC was quite sweet, in that it was Sea Dogs II (III?) with a hastily slapped on license, though I got the feeling the game would have been more interesting if it hadn't been simplified for the consuming masses.

The MMO version could be great. There's certainly enough scope with pirates/seafaring/trading etc, but I'm picturing an MMO version of Sid Meier's classic. If you throw in zombies (and maybe Kiera Knightley) and it could be fantastic, especially if manages to capture even half the wit of the film.

A small technical point, here, however: As any student of 16th century European colonialism will tell you; The correct phrasing is "Yarrrrr". :)

[RickR]

4.

I've had my hopes of piratical fulfillment pinned on PotC since I found out that "Pirates of the Burning Seas" was only going to have ship-based combat, with no avatar combat implemented right away. Soured me on "Burning Seas" right then and there.

[hikaru]

5.

Fully off topic, but...

Dan, I usually agree with what you write, but on a matter of tastes...

I fully disagree with your opinions on Kiera (hawt), Silent Hill (worth watching), SWG (utter garbage), and Lumines (tired and simplistic), and Depp's Jack Sparrow (Cary Elwes' TDPR is a better swashy pirate, by far).

As for the topic of thin vs. fat franchises, Pirates is practically nonexistent. Disney wanted to do a swashbuckler flick, and they happened to have a ride, so they said, why not. None of the animatronic characters have a name on the ride, and there isn't much of a story, more like a setting. (The one thing I missed seeing in the movie is a young lass getting her knickers ripped off by a dog...)

A pirate MMO would sell. There's a big demand. Especially if there are pirates AND ninjas in the same game. Disney will slap on the franchise name to bring in a few more customers, but it won't be the next WoW, that's for sure. And Disney knows that. It's still profit in the end.

WoW's success wasn't from the Warcraft franchise. It was from a strong Blizzard fanbase, especially from the success of their StarCraft and Diablo franchises. Brand loyalty. If Disney does a Pirates MMO, people will come primarily because it's Disney, not because it's Pirates of the Caribbean. Disney gets the added perk of having subscribing fans which will enjoy its other media as well. Win win, especially considering that an A-class MMO budget is still pidgeon feed compared to the cost of a B-class Disney movie.

[Troy]

6.

Greetings folks- my name is Troy ‘Aether’ Hewitt, and I’m the Community Envoy for Pirates of the Burning Sea. This conversation was forwarded to me by no less than four different folks, each concerned that the comments attached to the editorial reflected a misunderstanding about avatar combat and PotBS.

To clarify, Pirates of the Burning Sea will feature avatar combat. We are not ready to discuss the system or when it will be available to players, and it may be a post-launch feature, but we are committed to this element of the game. However, we believe our ship combat system is a kick-ass gaming experience and expect players will find it a blast to play even before avatar combat goes in.

To include or not to include is an issue that continues to be discussed on our forums at http://www.burningsea.com. You are certainly welcome to share your thoughts, or just keep tabs on the issue, by checking out some of the threads that address the subject. Here are a couple good places to start:

Flying Lab Software CEO Russell ‘Rusty’ Williams speaks to the development of avatar combat:
http://www.flyinglab.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=227480&highlight=avatar+combat#post227480

PotBS Producer John ‘Rev’ Tynes affirms that avatar combat will indeed be a feature:
http://www.flyinglab.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=231983&highlight=Avatar+Combat#post231983

Hopefully this information clears up any misunderstanding around the inclusion of avatar combat in Pirates of the Burning Sea. Feel free to drop me a line on our forums with any additional questions.

Cheers,
Troy

[arrmatey]

7.

Licenses/Properties have been with gaming for a long time. In that time I think it has been well proven that it's just as hard to make a good license game as it is to make a good original property (though for different reasons). The increased awareness that comes with a license cuts both ways. Crap license games still have more market presence than crap original games-- and so it happens again and again that someone points out that there are a lot of lousy games based on license/properties. As a developer you're gambling on your talent either way you go, but with a license you're usually gambling with someone else's money.

Ninjas, Dinosaurs, Spaceships, Stunts, Robots, Soldiers, Snipers, and Pirates. You're talking about the stuff that 12 year old dreams are made of. Imagination fodder for young minds that matters more than any 'branding' ever will. PotC and PotBS aren't trading on much more than that (although it's probably worth mentioning the billion dollar Disney marketing engine). Pirates FTW!

Ken Goldstein clip (Video 1) http://tinyurl.com/qsfa3

[CherryBomb]

8.

Cross-licensing is not always a fiasco. It works very well in cases like selling toys based on a children's movie or selling sound track recordings from a musical. In these situations the quality of the product is almost irrelevant, you're selling the brand for pure profit. Once the sale has been made, it doesn't make any difference whether the kid actually plays with his toy or if you can only stand to listen to the recording once.

MMOGS are different of course. The brand may sell the box, but it won't keep subscriptions coming in. Unfortunately, I get the impression that many entertainment execs don't really get this yet.