Q&A: How Atari's Steve Allison helps drive movie talent to games

It's a 20-minute drive from Atari marketing vice president Steve Allison's Santa Monica, CA, office to Hollywood. That's no coincidence. His position demands he be at the forefront of Atari's marketing campaign--so it's only natural that his location places him near the heart of the film industry, which is playing an ever greater part in the game world.

Allison has been key in bringing film IP and talent to games. He was part of the Atari team instrumental in leveraging the Wachowski brothers involvement in Enter the Matrix, and was one of the team members who played a vital role in securing Arnold Schwarzenegger's involvement in Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines. It was no surprise, therefore, to see his name attached to last week's news that Michael Madsen, Ving Rhames, Michelle Rodriguez, and Mickey Rourke will lend their voice-acting skills to the upcoming DRIV3R game in development at Atari's Reflections Studio.

GameSpot spoke with Steve Allison shortly after that deal was announced.

GameSpot: You've been on the Hollywood beat for Atari for some time now. Have you seen any change in the way A-list movie talent views games and the game industry over the past couple of years?

Steve Allison: We have seen an evolution, for certain, in how talent agencies like CAA, ICM, and William Morris view our business as another creative platform for their clients. They now have people dedicated to interactive gaming projects. This was not the case even two years ago.

GS: Are they any more inclined to participate now than they may have been earlier?

SA: Because of the answer above--along with what I think is the maturation of gaming as a real entertainment medium--a lot more actors, particularly actors working with these agencies, are looking to become involved more and more in game projects.

GS: Which industry, Hollywood or games, is the aggressor in this new collaboration?

SA: I think gaming companies are. We realize that as our products have changed as a wider form of entertainment, we now need high-end production values in sound, acting, special effects and great game play. In the past, video games were more of a "toy" and only needed to have great game play to be big hits. In this aspect, our business has changed quite a bit as the multimedia capabilities of home consoles and PCs have improved.

GS: Atari has done a credible job of integrating name Hollywood talent into some of its biggest games. How much does this level of talent add to a games production budget?

SA: Less than you think in most cases--although I can't give you numbers. What I can say is our business model is quite different than films in that we don't have three stages of revenues (film release, DVD release, and mature revenue share programs with the rental channel). That drives a certain basic approach and ceiling that we can spend to.

GS: Do the deals differ depending on whether the game product is an original IP or licensed?

SA: For original IPs, where we're trying to bring in better production values, look at it this way--games are equivalent to the independent film that an actor might decide to do for love, and not for the cash. No doubt, it is a nice paycheck for one or two days work, but nowhere near a film project. On licensed film IPs, it's a different matter. We are requiring the studios or film producers to provide the participation of the entire cast as part of the license deal. How they do it, we leave to them. Does it affect the cost of the license? Yes, probably, but we evaluate the cost against the magnitude of the license coming with all the talent when making the decision to move forward. I can say this: we are more likely to pass on any film licenses that do not come complete with the full cast committed to the video game than ever before because we believe it's critical today.

GS: What happens to the smaller games when stars like Schwarzenegger get involved? Does the hits-driven nature of the business eventually crowd out the smaller titles completely?

SA: Yes, but not for the reasons of talent participation alone. The maturation of gaming as an entertainment choice means more is expected of products overall, not just in actors or acting but also in visual effects, sound design, and art. You know what's happening? That's driving costs up to 4x what they were in the PS1 days.

Because this is a truth in our business today, fewer games are going to be made and more money will be put into each game. Companies that choose not to evolve with this are going to die and their products are really going to pale by comparison to those that move in stride with the business.

GS: How do you measure the benefit of adding a Rourke or Madsen or Rhames to a game? Is it the old-fashioned cost-benefit formula? Something as simple as: the addition of star talent gets you noticed and gets you sales?

SA: We view the addition of the talent as a must do, really not tied to an increase in sales. The Driver series has sold 6 million each of the two releases--it's hard to say that we will be able to do better than that. What we do believe is that the consumers demand we make these efforts in the product, especially one like DRIV3R, which competes almost directly with Grand Theft Auto and True Crime, two products with heavily integrated star voiceover work. Net-net: I think, in the case of DRIV3R, the evolution of the genre dictated that we needed to make the effort. At the end of the day the consumer benefits by experiencing a much more polished experience.

In the future, it will be a must-do across most narrative products in gaming, but I do not think you can tie it to sales gained. Not doing it, however, I bet you could tie to sales lost in the future.

GS: Does it help the overall Atari brand to be the brand most closely associated with using Hollywood talent?

SA: Long term, I think it does as long as we can continually deliver high quality games with the extras like Hollywood talent, great sound, etc. If we do that consistently over a period of time, the identity of the Atari brand will come to mean those things.

GS: What do you look for in an actor or a license that tells you it is ripe for an association with a game or game franchise?

SA: A license needs to appeal to males 13-26 years old, be fairly established in film or TV, and have a strong "fanatics factor." You can track the fanatics factor of entertainment brands via box office receipts, Yahoo buzz tracking (or similar measurements of internet searches), sales of ancillary merchandise, or just having a 6th sense about youth culture.

GS: Do you have a background from Hollywood that you bring to the game beat? How did you get your sense of what works and what doesn't?

SA: I have no background in Hollywood--I've been in the games business for 10 years, straight out of college. What has worked for me is I think I'm a very adaptable guy in real time more than anything. I learned by doing here and we got it right the first time--though we have had our moments (which I can't share). Those experiences have built some relationships and expertise that the company can leverage. There have been several people involved in the effort here in our studio who have gained this expertise as well and understand how to navigate these things to get them done.

How we gain a sense of what works and what doesn't is a combination of several things, including deep statistical analysis of game sales to box office receipts or TV ratings. We believe a film targeted to teen males needs to also be a $200 million domestic level film to be predicted to be a hit game. If not, it likely won't be--and history proves this if you study NPD. Yahoo Buzz is a great way to view what people are looking for. Dragonball Z sat on top of Yahoo Buzz and Lycos search queries for more than two years straight and nobody took notice until our guys grabbed the rights. You can see that move has translated into incredible game sales. These are some examples of how you can objectively analyze your success potential with licensed products.

GS: Thanks, Steve.