This is the right place.

Wow !!
I was blown away by Dan’s candor and presentation. His combination of interactive media, business, and entertainment knowledge made for a potent 511 cocktail. I came away excited about the production process and the potential frontiers of large scale interactive entertainment productions. The forging frontier of the film and interactive media industries is one exciting topic, I was glad Dan could field my questions on the topic.

His deeply embedded knowledge of IM business lingo was astounding. Although I eagerly toke notes the whole time, I know I only caught some of the gem’s he was spouting.

Age Compression: decreasing range of ages within a market

PNL: profit and loss statement

MOSD (moss): marketing opportunity specification document

Food for Thought Doc: preliminary design spec

Vertical Slice: an alpha version of a game, created early in production, which consists of a segment or level built out to reflect the quality of the final product.

Tree of Death: a limited branching narrative structure, whereby boundaries of divergence from the core narrative limit user exploration.

Links:
Square Enix
http://www.square-enix-usa.com/seui/index.htm
Stormfront Studios
http://www.stormfront.com/
Hammer and Tong
http://www.tongsville.com/
Hitchhiker's
http://www.douglasadams.com/movie/#footnote
Herbie
http://www.fantasy.be/html/new_movie____.html
Mickey
http://www.contactmusic.com/new/xmlfeed.nsf/mndwebpages/MICKEY%20MOUSE%20MERCHANDISING%20VEHICLE%20REVS%20UP

The forging frontier of the film and interactive media industries is one exciting topic, I was glad Dan could field my questions on the topic.

Thanks to Dan for such a rewarding talk!

First of all, Dan’s presentation is a hurricane from the industry for me. Different from the industry in my country and my personal understanding about the world game industry, the era of independent game production is nearly gone. While I am spending time and energy thinking about how to make better design in order to gain more economic success, Disney and all the other public medias have already invading the game industry.

Little by little, the key of a good game is not creative anymore, but big brand and popular characters. Kingdom Heart is a typical one. Triple A developer, Square Entertainment plus classic carrier, Disney. No one would doubt to buy their game. Meanwhile, games inherited from famous films are also a new value of the marketing.

Dan’s experience and knowledge are really broad. He is a great leader with a far seeing. But to me, concerned on the detailed game design, he touches many interesting area, but didn’t develop them. Like Tree of Death, Sand Structure and those production schedule. After all, today’s lecture is pretty valuable. I have a lot of thoughts fighting in my mind now.

Thanks Dan. Your insight into the game industry was very illuminating for those of us that are not insiders.

The challenges that developers face in predicting the demand of the market are extremely esoteric when thinking about game design in an academic environment, yet a necessary reality when considering investments in the tens of millions of dollars. Such considerations remind me of a screenwriting professor that I had at UCLA that put a dollar sign up on the white board before starting a lecture on the business of selling screenplays, he claimed that pursuing the dollar sign was not a type of selling out rather a choice about the audience that you are targeting. If you want to reach a large, diverse audience then you have to consider what features will appeal to them. Seems simple now when I repeat it, but it puts all the talk about market into perspective. As aspiring artists, we would like to believe that we will never have to compromise. The reality that we face is that even in a fine art world, the economics of audience and distribution are difficult aspects that we must accept and then turn to our advantage.

thanks to dan for showing us all how the machine works, and proving that indeed, "the machine is working." very interesting stuff, though - especially coming from the perspective of intellectual property. it was nice to have someone from a company that is being pulled in two directions on this front: 1) that they have their own powerful IP (mickey,etc) and 2) that they also are licensing stuff (hitchhikers, nightmare). How as a company, does this reconciliation happen, or how do they define an identity.

The most interesting part about all this to me, was how quality control works in the licensing arena. I think that this line between 'how bad is bad enough' is a problem with most licensed content right now -- these 3rd party places know that they've got an audience for the content, and they slack on all the important stuff that Dan talks Disney being such a stickler for -- being true to the content, the story, the world, etc. This inevitably leads to terrible games. the scary part, and the part that is beginning to remind me (ok, already reminds me) of hollywood, is that often times, if these licensed titles can bring in just enough to make a profit, then why spend long development cycles and lots of money developing games where the company doesn't even know if they'll get a return on their investment. Why take risks? That's probably why what'll happen is these licensed titles will keep rolling out, despite the fact that they are B quality, and it will be up to independent studios to take risks and make the games that really take the industry to new places.

that being said, I really appreciated the effort that buena vista appeared to be taking to translate these stories and worlds to games. I think that Dan really gets this - especially when he talks about working with Burton, or whatever, to develop additional content that is true to the original, but extends that world and makes it interactive.

Oooh . . . this rivals Joy's presentation from last week as my favorite so far . . . ;-). Like everyone else has said, it was so great hearing from someone who has been on all sides of the business (including acting as well). Even though I'm not interested in developing games myself, understanding how a development cycle works with a movie release or combining assets with animation studios or visual effects houses (for things like pre-rendered animation sequences) is priceless for someone like me who works on THAT end of the business.

I definitely learned more on the initial development process than I knew before--and I think a lot of that can relate to not only interactive media, but other types of development using other people's creative properties.

Also fascinating to have someone from Disney during this post-Roy Disney, pre-Comcast era . . .

I'd like to thank Dan for his enthusiasm and honesty about the business side of Interactive, especially his perspective on Disney, irrefutably a giant in this aspect. Again, I found myself applying what he has said about marketing, audience, product expectations of interactive games to the knowledge I already have...gladly finding its not that different!

I enjoyed the beginning of the presentation when Dan was speaking about integrating a legacy character with a story, into an interactive piece. This is a similar struggle (on a much smaller level) that I have had trying to re-imagine an existing linear narrative without using the Tree of Death. I am definitely going to more closely examine Kingdom Hearts in terms of story structure.

The importance of this game for me has a lot to do with the marketability and the brand of these characters. I have a friend who obsessively played Kingdom hearts, but does not play any other games. He was only attracted to it because it was a game using the Disney characters. What other strong—yet untapped—brands are out there, just waiting for me to come along and license?

I would like to find out more about the marketing aspect of games, especially using tie-ins and integration with movie/television/print campaigns, but I'll probably have to get that from another source on my own.

I have really enjoyed these past two presentations, probably because they have focused on the two aspects I find most interesting about the interactive media field, research and business. I think now its time for me to find my inspiration for the actual creation.

Dan was an excellent speaker and had a lot of insightful knowledge concerning the game development world. I was most impressed by his background and his enthusiasm.

I would have to reiterate the same point that Will made earlier - Quality control. This is somthing that has bugged me since day one about the Disney class of games and their basis on the movies themselves. Didn't we just get done discussing that movies don't make great games? I was glad to hear that some of those titles were mostly produced out of house by third party companies. It would frustrate me to no end if I had to deal with second rate games under my own high quality label. I am glad that Disney is rolling out their "Gold Seal". I know this will be a big double edge sword for them, but at least gamers will have the benefit of knowing the difference.

Another interesting point that Dan made was product timing in the market. Pirates of the Caribbean didn't sell well because it was released at the correct time and that it was marketed to a core gamer audience. But the people wanting to buy the game at the time of the movies release was NOT the core gamer audience and those that they were marketing it to were skeptical of a the disney label. This really is a big deal for a few other games that I can think of that are soon to hit the shelves, specifically Doom III and Half Life 2.

I have a feeling that HL2's absence from Decembers Xmas sales was to punish the little hackers that hacked the game. What Vivendi didn't realize was that the slated release date of April wouldn't cut it because of all the games that are flooding the market that will be very similar to it, such as Far Cry, STALKER oblivion lost and one or two other games. This would push sales too low and thus has driven them to release the game next X-mas to boost sales (as Dan told us, games don't sell well in the summer). I think this may be even a greater mistake, as people will latch on to the much anticipated D3 and will probably fall in love with STALKER (as it looks amazing). All I gotta say is, GET IT IN GEAR VIVENDI. Wow, that got off topic.

Anyway, Dan made some great points and I was glad he could speak to us. The more insight the better!

Dan Winter’s presentation was a home run for USC! It was refreshing to hear an experienced and enthusiastic (the pixie dust is still trailing) view of the BUSINESS & CONTENT of Interactive Entertainment. It is also inspiring to see the successful integration of diverse sensibilities in one person. The projects that Dan showed us set the bar, as we often expect from Disney. However his candor about the frustrations and challenges of the business “brought it home” for all of us.

Recently there has been a lot of debate in the game industry, and in our program, regarding the value of story within games. Yet clearly, great story and characters remain at the heart of the Disney product. I believe this is also the main reason why the Disney brand has been so successful over the years. This focus on story is an essential ingredient to a broadening game demographic.

Many of Dan’s game-story strategies were fascinating. Presenting the obstacles of the “original second act” was a clever technique. Utilizing the game engine for story structure is also intriguing. I’m very interested in exploring these and other concepts and developments.

However, the most thought provoking comment was Dan’s suggestion that Theme Park properties have not been properly leveraged in Disney game content. I completely agree! Interactive Theme park content is something I’m familiar with and a concept I proposed at Imagineering in the early 90s. I remain extremely interested in giving people interactive entertainment that focuses on this untapped property.

It is important to note that, before the acquisition of ABC, Theme Parks and related real estate accounted for 40% of the company’s revenue. The characters and stories imbedded in theme parks are unique to the Disney brand and culture. I am confident I can help Dan realize this concept’s extraordinary potential.

Thank you again, Dan! Along with everyone else, I agree it was so great to hear someone on the inside of the business of the game industry to clearly communicate what it's like.

This semester has been charged with questions on narrative and game structures, so it was especially interesting to hear how one goes about translating a film narrative into a game for merchandising.

It was also great to find out there is someone successful in the game industry with a background more diverse than my own!

First off, I would like to extend a HUGE Thank You to Dan for coming to speak with us. He created a very unique atmosphere that was both intense and relaxed, his speaking style made me at once very comfortable and eager to listen and learn.

It was interesting that he noted how Disney properties, other than those legacy properties (Mickey, Donald, Goofy etc...) cannot occupy the same space, whether that be in a movie, game or otherwise. I was not aware of that....besides "House of Mouse," or the "Disney Villains" products, it would be funny to see Belle and Aladdin together in a film, but that will never happen.

His discussion of "The Tree of Death" was both funny and enlightening. I have a hard time justifying the "branching structure" in my own interactive writing, as it comes to the problem of too many endings. Dan's explanation proved fruitful in his elaboration on how to let the user branch off, but if they go too far on that branch without returning to the main story, they die...simple and eloquent.

Dan talked of third vs. first party publishing deals and how Disney can make first party deals because they have content that other publishing parties want. Which brings me to content and how vital it is along with its sibling "story" to the development of great interactive quality. I agree with both Will and Mike B. on this...story, story, story....!

I also wanted to include a quick rundown of Dan's background in case anyone missed some parts...he said it so fast...

Here goes....I Started in CSCI, moved in to Telecom, pro baseball for 5 years A's Giants, Mets, became actor...married actor...someone had to make an honest living...big gamer...BBS (bulletin board system)...finished school at UCLA...member of focus group (Unnatural Selection game) beat it without doing what the game intended, and so, they invited him to design game to completion...got job at Activision, worked on Mech Warrior 2, in '94, knew internal dev. and went to work for DI, Timon and Pumba Jungle games CD based...whew...not everything, but close enough.

Anyway, a BIG thanks to Dan for coming and for showing us the previews of both "Kingdom Hearts 2" and "The Nightmare Before Christmas" I can't wait to get my hands on both of them.

Oh...and it was good to hear that DI is following Nintendo and putting a "Gold Seal of Quality and Authenticity" on their products....

Don't mess with Disney, "Disney always wins...we have a bigger hammer." --Dan

I enjoyed Dan's presentation as well, he had some very interesting things to say about the business end, as well as some of the issues we've been discussing here in the program.

From the perspective of a company like Disney, Dan show a number of variants for the business of games. The relationships between developer, publisher, and manufacturer can vary subtly, yet substantially depending on how you decide to develop a product. Dan outlined the differences, and who gets how much money very clearly. The ideas of timing, and how a product fit into the larger "machine" was also enlightening.

Apart from the main business focus, another subject that has been on most of our radars came up: How are movies and games related? A great deal of Dan's work involves that question, and he had some good points to make on the subject there as well. I think any good story ends up being a small part of a much larger entity. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, for instance, is as much (if not more) of a world as it is a linear narrative. Adding the element of interactivity allows a reader/player to go further, look a little past what the camera or page shows us. I, myself, think this part of interactivity is more profound than assuming the role of a linear narrative character and participating in the already existing narrative (although that's certainly a key lure for most linear/interactive crossovers).

Dan's aside about transferring 2D characters into 3D was very amusing...you can get away with a lot of stuff in 2D, adding a third dimension can throw things out of wack. A lot of the work I'm doing right now is trying to play with that discrepancy.

The projects Dan is currently involved look awesome, frankly. "Nightmare Before Christmas" actually seemed to mesh well in the 3D space. I'm sure this is in no small part due to the fact that the movie used stop motion-the existing 3D element made the transition easier. Plus, Jack's a cool character to animate...who wouldn't want to control a character based off Fred Astaire? Using existing content, certainly if it's good content, can offer good possibilities.

Anyway, I wanted to thank Dan for his time and a wonderful presentation.

Another thumbs up. I really enjoyed Dan’s entire presentation. Through the use of examples and personal insight, Dan was able to present a wide variety of topics relative to our field of study. While not all of us want to go down the commercial path in the future, the information that Dan presented was extremely valuable.

When Kingdom Hearts first came out, it was the first game in a long time that I really wanted to try out and play. I saw the game and got to try it out during the IML open house last year. A few weeks later, I ended up renting the game and was still completely engaged. I actually almost bought a PS2 for it. Like Julie’s friend, I was immediately attracted to the familiar characters and that fact that they were all together in a single virtual environment. The strategic alliance that was formed between Disney and Squaresoft to make this game really paid off in my mind.

The concept of transitioning 2D characters into a 3D environment was very powerful and, as Dan mentioned, brought up the issues of intellectual property and the transition of traditionally old property and media into a 3D environment.

Dan’s honesty and vast knowledge of the industry shed a light on the life of a video game, from conception to delivery. The insight Dan shed on storytelling in both a linear and non-linear fashion was also extremely helpful. I had never heard of Chris Crawford’s “Piles of Sand” metaphor before, and now see how damaging it can be.

Overall, Dan’s presentation was a nice peek into the world of video games from an insider’s prospective. The ways in which Buena Vista Interactive goes about getting a game out into the market is a long and complicated process, but one that is very valuable. The flops that Dan mentioned really emphasize that point. The examples that Dan showed have left me with a good taste in my mouth and I cannot wait to see what the future holds.

I would like to thank Dan for his honesty and for taking the time out to come and speak to us.

this was a great talk. certainly one of the best 'industry' speakers we have had thus far. the bridge between trying to do some really cool stuff and making money is a tricky one, esp when its for such a goliath of the entertainment industry. it was refreshing to me to see that beast hadnt stolen dan's soul and that he had a great understanding of the quality of the product and the goals they wanted for their work. its so easy to write off so many content providers as creating junk because they know they can make a quick buck; it was great to see someone who was trying to strengthen a brand - it shows commitment over the long-term to the quality of what is released.

while i didnt agree with everything he said (as usual for me), it was great to see the straddling of the line between the art and the industry, esp by someone who seems to understand both.

Dan gave a great informal, down-to-earth talk. It’s always interesting to hear about how decision makers juggle quality, profit and brands. One of the issues he raised concerned preserving quality integrity, while keeping an open mind to radical ideas. I think it’s a valuable lesson for evolving a company with the times. It’s always depressing to see a brand or narrative be compromised by unintelligent marketers and executives. When a movie, character or game becomes successful, it’s sometimes for simple reasons, and other times for complicated and unpredictable reasons. It’s case by case. Compromising their integrity is dangerous, because fans can backlash against change. Successful old stories and characters and business philosophies endure for a multitude of reasons. They also fall out of favor for many reasons. Figuring out those reasons isn’t easy. It’s great to hear from someone who has what it takes.

Dan was quite fun to listen to, and his talk really got me excited about the possibilities for creating story-rich games. What I enjoyed most is that his company seemed to be a departure from the assembly-line model of game-making that I perceive in the game industry as a whole. Disney Interactive's approach seemed to be to start with a story and then craft a game around it, the method I prefer, while many game companies seem to start with gameplay and them then throw a story in.

Overall, Dan's presentation was great. His frank manner and the excitement he exuded made for a very valuable presentation.