Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

FindMakarov: The $8,000 Modern Warfare FanFic1 Comment

Yesterday when the countdown on FindMakarov hit zero fans ended up getting exactly what we suspected: A short fan film inspired by Modern Warfare. Once I uncovered what was really going on last week, the film’s director, 25-year-old Jeff Chan, agreed to answer some of my questions about the movie, which cost him about $8,000 to make. Already it’s up to nearly 750,000 views on YouTube and Chan reports that Hollywood agents have already been in touch. His responses are below.

Q: What inspired you to make this FindMakarov short film?

A: We were playing around with a helmet cam earlier last year and we picked up a paintball gun and ran around Call of Duty style. We thought it would be fun to tell shoot a film in first person based on the Modern Warfare universe. Our company does viral work for brands and agencies so of course we wanted to extend the campaign narrative to different mediums.

Q: How long did it take to put together the short and how much did it cost to create?

A: The film was shot during the summer over approximately 7 shoot days. Post-production and VFX happened over the winter in time for this release, and the campaign was built throughout February. A lot of incredible people donated time and resources to get this project made. Of course, you always have to make sure people are safe, well fed and able to arrive to set. In total, I would say we spent around $8,000 on the video.

Q: You made the movie from a first-person perspective. Why?

A: Digital technology was just getting small enough to be helmet mounted and we thought we could give people a representative visual experience first person shooters that they hadn’t seen before.

Q: The movie directly mimics some key moments from the first two Modern Warfare games. Why did you decide to go in this direction?

A: We aimed to create a story that weaved through some of the more memorable moments of the Modern Warfare games while carefully adding our own scenes that fit tonally within the universe.

Q: How would you explain the plot of the short and how it fits into the Call of Duty fiction? It looks like you’re suggesting what you’d like to see in Modern Warfare 3?

A: There are a lot of coverage problems shooting a first person movie as you are limited in editing one angle. We solved some of these problems with subtle effects like blinks which allowed us to make small cuts but we also structured the story into short scenes that jumped through time. We open at the end of MW2 and when Soap blacks out from getting stabbed by Shepherd, we rabbit hole back in time to when he first signs up for the SAS. We then follow Soap’s journey from a ‘muppet’ to the commander of Task Force 141. At the end of the film, we leapfrog into the future to the eve of the United State’s counter-invasion of Moscow.

Q: Tell us a bit about the production process. What were the most difficult shots to pull off?

A: The entire film was shot first person by Michael Heathcote who served as both our camera operator and lead actor. Justin Lovell, our cinematographer, developed a very interesting visual language and there was a lot of planning and coordination with our stunt guys to perform all of the actions. We fought blazing heat, thunderstorms and snow to make this thing. We couldn’t have done it without our amazing crew who worked really hard to make this one come together.

Q: What software did you use to bring the movie to life?

A: A: Junction VFX did all the composite and visual FX on the project. They’re led by William Chang (creative director) and Jacky Wan (technical director).

Footage was first 3D tracked in Syntheyes. Our company used 3D Studio Max 2010 as our main 3D package to create animatics, models, and particle effects. 3D rendering was then created with the Vray render engine and the final composite was finished in Adobe After Effects.

Junction was definitely an integral partner to the project. They were incredible to work with and delivered amazing results despite many technical hurdles they had to face.

Q: You created quite a stir with the “countdown” site last week, leading many gamers to think it was a teaser site for Modern Warfare 3. Was that your intention?

A: Our intentions were to get fans excited about our mysterious Call of Duty-inspired project. As a viral content company, we aimed to create a campaign that would tap into the story of the franchise and would be a fun experience for the fans of the story. The fact that it was reported the way it was is really a testament to how incredibly fast information, rumors, and conspiracy theories travel online these days. That said, we’d like to commend you personally on your reporting. We were very impressed by how quickly and accurately you uncovered the truth.

Q: Have you been in touch with Activision? What do they think of FindMakarov?

A: We’ve spoken to Activision but we can’t comment on the nature of those discussions.

Q: What are you plans for the future? Do you want to create more shorts? Turn FindMakarov into a longer piece?

A: We are always working on new projects. We actually have been working on a very special project, one that is much more ambitious than Findmakarov but you’ll have to stay tuned to learn more.

Latest Comment
  • One question you forgot was when will the short fill be released ? More»
add a comment

Jason Rubin Responds to Bonus Round Commenters23 Comments

GameTrailers users love to comment on the Bonus Round. The latest segment caused quite a few viewers to write in with their thoughts on Jason Rubin’s comments. Was Jason saying that all games should be “pay as you go?” Did he really just say that all games should be run like FarmVille on Facebook? Jason is reading your thoughts, and sent me the below response to the comments on GameTrailers:

To Bonus Round Viewers,

I’d like to apologize, because I don’t think I did a good job of explaining what I was suggesting, and the panel quickly turned it into an argument about business models I didn’t suggest and game balance, rather than a fair price for games and the industry’s ability to survive.

Additionally, there were arguments made on the panel against suggestions that were not mine, but somehow I got blamed for: for example Shane suggesting that I would approve of games that shut off if you didn’t pay or paying for prestige. These are not my beliefs and if you watch the panel you can see that I never suggest either and denied that they were good ideas. I want to clear that up.

It is a discussion of industry financial survival that I was brought onto the show to discuss, and it is here that any discussion of what I really believe has to begin.

The first misconception from those that have commented is that the industry can stay as is. The most common comment has been that many gamers like the current model of game pricing. Were the industry in good shape financially right now, then I would agree that there is no reason to change. Unfortunately, this model is not currently working very well and may not support continued game creation. This is not my opinion alone, and I didn’t invite myself to the panel to ask myself these questions. These are unfortunately blatantly obvious facts. Michael Pachter specifically pointed to EA’s recent earnings (or lack thereof) as an indication that something is indeed broken. EA and Activision’s large recent layoffs (Activision after the show’s taping) also point to less AAA games getting made and changes ahead. Losses and layoffs are not a sign of a healthy industry.

Certainly, all of us understand that if a company loses money continually it must either 1) change the way it behaves or 2) cease to be. We can all agree that ceasing to make games is not what we want, so we have to look for a change of behavior that makes the company healthy and profitable so we can all get the games we want to play.

This does not necessarily have to be digital distribution or other payment models. It could be something nobody has thought of yet. But making games at a loss is not a business that can survive so SOMETHING clearly has to change. It is my suggestion that alternate business models and digital distribution are a possible solution.

The second misconception is that I somehow advocate letting people buy their way through games, to get ahead of others through payments, or somehow unbalancing the game, for example by “buying prestige.” Anybody who took this out of the panel was not listening to my continual protests.

I have never believed that game balance should be influenced by cash.

Possibly the most misconstrued (and most unintended) moment was when we discussed WOW gold mining and I conceded that life isn’t fair. This was not a suggestion that games shouldn’t be fair. Nor was it a suggestion that people with money should be able to buy advantage. I was referring to the same unfairness that allows some people to pay $60 for a game while some are unable to afford that pleasure – EVER. That is unfair, so there is already unfairness in the system today. But I would endeavor to make the system more fair rather than stick with the current unfairness. I don’t believe that digital distribution and alternate business models leads us away from that goal. In fact, I believe they may lead us towards it.

To be clear:

I have been a game maker for my entire life and balancing games has been the most important skill I have learned. Over 40 million people have played the games I made and thought my balancing was fair and fun. I am aware that is no less ridiculous to let people buy completion of a level of a game or to buy “prestige” than it is to try to sell them the end of a movie plot before they go into a movie theatre. Furthermore, since many games today are multi-player, unbalancing a game will have tragic results not only for the person buying the advantage, but also for those that did not. In short, it screws up the whole game for everyone.

Buying bullets, buying advancement, buying better guns, and tons of other ideas were shot down by the panel, and those that have commented, but those ideas were never raised by me. It is really easy to rail argue something I didn’t say, but it says nothing about my suggestions.

The third misconception is that while many of the comments have assumed that alternate business models must mean higher costs to gamers on average. We do not know this to be true. I do believe that the model will distribute costs differently, and hopefully a model that is as good for the gamer and better for the industry can be found.

If anything, the current model is not fair pricing. The small number of heavy users for each game get an incredible deal, while the majority of gamers, who are searching for a game they love, can try less games because of the price point. There is a real cost to publishers for multiplayer games in servers and infrastructure, which is unevenly borne by those that don’t play the game as much as those that do. This was not true with the old offline game model, and it is not true with DVD’s. That inefficiency is great for hard core gamers (who of course are overrepresented in the Bonus Round audience) but bad for the industry.
My comments that the industry must take chances and create new experiences, which I was lauded for in the comments in section 1 of this panel, are at direct odds with the current model.

For example, when researching a recent online game I calculated that the highest volume user (who had played 150+ 8 hour days in the games 190 days of release!) was paying less than a nickel per hour. Now of course this was only the highest volume user, but it is insane to argue that this is fair pricing. This user was costing the publisher money based on server and bandwidth costs. Who was paying for this usage? Users that played less and the publisher were paying. That may have been you.
The fourth misconception is that I was suggesting a specific model for specific games.

While a subscription may work for some games (WOW is one), it is not the cleanest or nicest model, and may not fit for many other games. Just a reminder, I never suggested subscription or pay as you go during the panel. And I certainly never suggested your game should “turn off” after a period of time. I don’t like that idea either. Nor was I suggesting that FarmTown’s model would work for any specific game. Every game is different, and every game might need a different solution. But I think there are solutions.

In fact, I was vague on specific implementations not because I don’t have ideas, but because one solution cannot possibly fit all games. There are many, many examples of digital distribution and alternate business models that are better and are working for gamers and game makers, from inexpensive games to full sized games. There are billions of dollars in income in such games with tens of millions of users… some with more users than the biggest console game. Anyone who denies this has not done any research.

I believe that game developers are some of the smartest people on earth. If they spent as much time being creative with business models as they are with content then I think that they would find solutions that made gamers and game makers happier… even those who dismiss the concept without giving it a chance.

PS: If you would still like to call me an idiot directly you can find me at or on twitter at jason_rubin.


Latest Comment
  • Your blog is really cool to me and your topics are very relevant. I was browsing around and came … More»
add a comment

Bonus Round: Year in Review 2009No Comments

What were the big stories of 2009 in the gaming industry? Our 2009 year-end Bonus Round on recaps the headlines, the top games, and the trends that are changing the business. Guests are Michael Pachter from Wedbush Securities, Shane Satterfield from, and Garnett Lee from Shacknews. Sit back, relax, and enjoy the near hour-long discussion embedded below or viewable at

Latest Comment
No comment so far
add a comment

Video Game Awards World Premieres!1 Comment

The 2009 VGAs featured more than a dozen world premieres and even surprise announcements, like the sequel to BATMAN: ARKHAM ASYLUM. Over on you can view all the world premiere trailers including HALO REACH, STAR WARS: THE FORCE UNLEASHED II, TRON: EVOLUTION, SPEC OPS: THE LINE, MEDAL OF HONOR and many more!

Pulling together our VGA world premieres takes the better part of 6 months, as publishers and developers create custom trailers and assets just for the worldwide broadcast! We hope you enjoyed all the premieres for some of the most anticipated games coming in 2010 and 2011.

Latest Comment
  • and where is the winner from this award? More»
add a comment

Spike Video Game Awards (VGAs) Coming 12/124 Comments


Spike’s Video Game Awards are coming back this Saturday, December 12th at 8 PM on Spike. Stay tuned for many more details in the days to come. We have some amazing world premiere titles and announcements in the show, and of course awards for the best games of 2009.

What world premiere titles would you like to see?

Latest Comment
  • Halo: Reach is what I want to see, AND WE WILL BE! More»
add a comment

Spike Special: Batman: Arkham Asylum1 Comment

Easily one of the most talked about games of 2009 is Batman: Arkham Asylum. It’s an early contender for game of the year. A few months ago I was lucky enough to visit the game developer Rocksteady in London for a behind the scenes look at the making of the game. You can see the full 30 minute Spike TV special on the game below — it’s currently the #1 most downloaded TV show on PlayStation Network! Enjoy – and if you click through you can watch the show in HD.

Latest Comment
  • Definitely a very appealing game. I haven't played it yet myself but all the times I saw the commercials and … More»
add a comment