There's all the usual culprits in there (the titles that, year after year, demand huge wads of your hard-earned cash) - from the latest Call of Duty and Gears of War instalments, right through to football franchise updates for the PES and FIFA series.

In fact what is most noticeable about the list is that pretty much all of the big names are the latest editions of long-running franchises, and that little in the way of new or original titles are competing with the big blockbuster names in this period. This is perhaps unsurprising owing to the fact that publishers understand that gamers wallets have only finite resources, and that it's hard to get adequate attention for something new in this release window (those more original releases will usually be held for February/March when there is a little more space for them to get the critical attention and word of mouth that they need in order to become the next big franchise).

So, in the meantime, feast your eyes on the screenshots that evidence the current state of play with most of modern video-gaming's top franchises this autumn; marvel once more at the financial superiority of the computer game franchise revenue model that just keeps on giving and giving, as opposed to the Hollywood franchise that is usually exhausted by the fourth or fifth instalments (that is why the intersections of the two industries are proving so interesting these days, as discussed in some of our older posts on here). Ultimately though, at a time like this, the only important question becomes: how can I justify getting both an Xbox and a PS3?

The other half of the argument was that the video games industry is an altogether different entity in terms of its approach to entertaining its customers and fans, with complex, thought-provoking entertainment being the norm - rather than the oxymoron that it would represent in the Hollywood context.

Now, it should be noted that Brooker is a keen gamer of many years (he used to write - rather excellently - for UK gaming magazine, PC Zone) but is also a fan of both film and television, so his keenly-argued piece naturally had me pondering further parallels between Hollywood and the video gaming industry - and, while I think there is some merit in the opinion that gaming currently offers more 'clever blockbusters' than Hollywood (maybe 8 vs 2 a year at a rough guess), there are also a load of other parallels which slightly complicate this simplistic opposition. Here's a few comparisons of the two industries which I think are worthy of note:

1. An obvious point to start with - the two industries are increasingly intertwined with each passing year. As Brooker's article points out, recent gaming hits such as LA Noire actually feature real-life actors, whose physical performances have been cleverly digitised within the graphics of the game. Nothing new here; many will remember the use of acted cut-scenes even in games as old as Command & Conquer: Red Alert 1. But this is just the tip of the iceberg, as games and films are converging ever more rapidly (with CGI now being a huge component of many Hollywood products) and many big-budget games requiring the kind of 'direction' and organisation of creative personnel that mimics that of Hollywood productions.

Moreover, even though many Hollywood video game adaptations have been utter rubbish (from Mario Bros to Tomb Raider, Resident Evil to Mortal Kombat) and many gaming movie tie-ins (i.e. Spiderman games, Harry Potter games etc etc) are not much better - there is ever more use of revenue models that jointly rely on crossover products. It should be noted that both these directions of travel (games into films, and films into games) are driven more by Hollywood than by the video games industry - though how long major companies in the two sectors will remain separate is an interesting question - I expect we'll see some big games company acquisitions from major Hollywood studios in coming years.

2. Secondly, since gamers typically spend far longer in the fictional spaces provided by games than film goers do in theirs (many tens of hours vs. maybe two hours respectively), video games are able to utilise franchise production to an even greater degree than Hollywood. So, successful franchises such as Final Fantasy, Call of Duty, Command and Conquer, etc (the list could go on for a LONG time) can easily run into 10+ sequels and follow-ups, whereas most Hollywood franchises are well done and dusted by the third or fourth run (think Shrek, American Pie, Die Hard, Rocky etc - even those utterly milked examples will never get as far as a tenth outing).

This is of course also dependent upon the fact that every couple of years or so, games developers can call upon more advanced technologies - which in itself are reason enough to make a new instalment in the franchise (i.e. new/better graphics etc) which doesn't happen so much in Hollywood, the latest 3D craze being a rare exception (yes, previous special effects can be bettered/outdone - but not as often as in the world of gaming). The point however is that if you bemoan Hollywood's reliance on franchise models and lack of creativity - think again about the even greater degree to which it dominates gaming.

3. Both Hollywood and the video games industry rely massively on external sources for plots, concepts and aesthetics. Charlie Brooker lauds the recent LA Noire as an example of gaming's 'intelligent' product - but that particular  game owes a huge debt to Hollywood popularisation and development of film noir aesthetics back in the 1940's and 50's - which in itself derived from the literary genre which arose in the 1930's, and also the visual aesthetics of German cinematic expressionism and so on.

Anyway, this list of comparisons could go on indefinitely - the point is that the interplay and convergence of these two industries and their respective forms of visual entertainment product will significantly shape and define the media entertainment landscape in coming years. Currently gaming companies are able to generate profits that rival Hollywood, without dumbing down to same extent for two reasons: they are tackling piracy more competently (though not to say it isn't a factor in draining profits) and their product costs the consumer maybe ten times what a trip to the cinema might. If either of these things change, I wonder if games developers might have to make unwelcome creative compromises in order to safeguard revenues? Pure speculation and something we cannot really answer in a few words here - let's hope we never have to find out.

Let me give you a few figures:

'Indiana Jones 4' UK box office TOTAL:  £48m

'Michael Jackson This is It' documentary UK box office TOTAL (so far): £5m '

The Dark Knight' UK box office TOTAL: £54m

'Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2' UK gross FROM LESS THAN A WEEK AFTER RELEASE: £47m...

Now clearly we've all been banging on for some time about how huge the video gaming industry is, how much it's worth etc etc. But the thing is that it hasn't really permeated to any great extent into the public consciousness because, even with the success of GTA 4, it was always felt that aside from the odd exception games could never do the kind of figures we see from the super-hit blockbusters.

Well no longer is this the case, for the new COD represents in effect the video game industry's Titanic (the film not the actual ship) - in essence such a runaway financial monster hit that the media will inevitably shine a spotlight once again on the whole topic, and a few more eyebrows will be raised in a 'huh? but i thought games were a niche past-time of a few teenage geeks?' kind of way, before giving way to the realisation that gaming is right up there as an entertainment industry with the long-established giant of cinema.

Whatsmore it is interesting to observe how the gaming sector is following many of the trends evident in the film industry in recent years - for example the divergence between varying modes of production, and markets. What I mean by this is that while the runaway monster productions such as COD and GTA resemble the franchise film-making models recently reinvigorated by Hollywood (Indiana Jones, Die Hard, Batman etc) so too the vast improvements in software and hardware availability means that there is quite a considerable (but financially smaller) sector of DIY independent games being made and distributed either for free, or for only a few dollars/pounds.

The parallels could continue, but really what interests me most in relation to this topic is the question of how big games will become in coming years. After all, cinema audiences have dwindled massively since the post WWII peak years, though of course we still watch plenty of films, though now on a variety of formats. Of course film is huge in every sense, be it culturally, economically or whatever. But it is time to really acknowledge not only that video games are now representing a consistent rival (or partner as is far more often the case - just look at crossovers such as video games adapted to film, or the even more common, films adapted into games), and that it is not inconceivable that in another 10 or 20 years, gaming might completely dwarf cinema/film as both an industry - and a pastime. Seems far fetched maybe, but not so if one considers the statistical trends evident in recent years. Only time will tell...

Dejan Levi