Why movie-related games are rarely sold

Until the early 2010s, it was almost guaranteed that any blockbuster movie would have a video game accompanying it. These were often criticized, but occasionally produced a gem like Spider-Man 2 (2004) or X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009). Even if the production of cinema-related games has not completely ceased (Lego adaptations are still going strong, for example), it is far from the pace of release of a few decades ago.

In 2007, more than 30 licensed games based on films were released. In 2025, the closest thing we got were in-game additions related to movie releases, like a dedicated event server in Minecraft for his film or Fortnite skins for Fantastic Four: first steps. But a few recent events have reignited nostalgia for this bygone era of gaming. We’ve recently seen the shadow fall Lord of the Rings: War in the Northa remaster of a 2011 game largely inspired by Peter Jackson’s trilogy. There is also the upcoming double version of Toy Story: Retro Recap! And Toy Story 3: Complete Editiona revitalized compilation of titles based on the classic films.

But what killed motion-related games, and could we ever see them return?

The main driver of the decline of licensed games comes down to one thing: money. The overall cost of creating a game has increased significantly over time: in 2004, it cost $40 million to produce. Half-life 2; almost two decades later, Marvel’s Spider-Man 2 will cost around $300 million. With continued advancements in hardware, there has been something of a technical arms race, where every AAA game produced faces increasing pressure to maximize scope and graphical fidelity. In turn, budgets allocated to team sizes and technology have increased exponentially.

Movie-related games also incur additional costs. Before a project even begins, there is the question of a licensing agreement with the film company. These figures are generally not published and vary widely depending on intellectual property, but to give a rough idea: in 1982, Atari paid $22 million for the licensing rights to AND — with inflation, that’s a little over $75 million today. These deals aren’t always just flat fees. They can also take the form of revenue sharing, where the intellectual property owner receives a portion of all profits from the game. On top of all this, publishers and game developers potentially have to pay to use the likenesses of a movie’s stars in the game.

With increasing budgets comes increased risk for each new project. The threat of layoffs and entire studio closures is a constant sword of Damocles for every game produced. Developer Supermassive Games recently faced major layoffs following the release of Directive 8020and the incredibly short life cycle of Concord and its developer Firewalk Studios remains a stark reminder of the consequences of bad numbers. In today’s landscape, it’s difficult for a studio to justify taking a risk on a multi-million dollar movie licensed game.

Besides the increased expense, today’s games also take much longer to produce, which is antithetical to enjoying a movie release. Most films take about two and a half years to produce at most, while an average AAA game takes five to seven years. In 1982, the Raiders of the Lost Ark The game adaptation only took 10 months to produce, which would be impossible today. Because each’s publicity is tied to the other, if a tie-in game doesn’t match the movie release, it’s almost always a wasted attempt (with some rare exceptions like Golden Eye 007).

Even if such a short timeline was possible, changes in the film industry also made preemptive development more difficult. When tie-ins started to take off, some developers (like Ocean Software, the company behind the 1987 project) Section adaptation) would receive full film scripts very early in their life cycle. As the era of highly anticipated film franchises began alongside the rise of the Internet, filmmakers became much more concerned about potential leaks.

In an interview with Movie storiesTraveller’s Tales developer Andrew Burrows recalls that when designing the 2007 game Transformers: The Gamedirector Michael Bay was “deeply suspicious” of game companies, refusing to share robot designs. “We didn’t know what the plot was,” Burrows said. “We were already well into development before we even started obtaining assets.” With little or no information that developers can use, these adaptation times become even more insurmountable.

If AAA budgets and development cycles are such a big part of the problem, why hasn’t there been a shift to independent development studios for movie-related games? Although this question is legitimate, its answer is the same as the first question raised: money. The average budget for an indie game can range from around $10,000 to $300,000, which leaves very little room for the aforementioned licensing costs. Even if a small team had enough money to secure the license, the chances of a major movie studio wanting to take a chance on its beloved intellectual property within a likely less proven development team are slim, especially given increased fan scrutiny.

Games and their consoles are expensive, so the bar is now much higher for what gamers expect from a title: if it accompanies a blockbuster, fans expect blockbuster-level quality. Instead of direct movie tie-ins, the market has shifted to games set in the world of an intellectual property. There is a strong history of well-executed new stories in existing universes, including the highly successful Batman: Arkham series (the first of which, Asylumfollowed in the wake of a canceled The Black Knight related game that closed a studio). And of course, the modern Spider-Man games are some of the best available on PS5.