We mentioned Emotiv nearly two years ago when Brian Crecente, editor of our sister site Kotaku, had a less than favorable interaction with the device (and we also suggested the technology could have some naughtier implications). However, Emotiv now believes that its neurosensor helmet, the Emotiv EPOC, is consumer-ready. The EPOC will be available to consumers in the US on December 21, and will retail for $299.

The EPOC is essentially a home EEG device, using electrodes to detect the brain's electrical activity. Earlier videos of people using the EPOC indicated that gameplay wasn't terribly smooth, so we'll have to wait and see if the consumer version offers satisfying gameplay, or just a neat bit of novelty. Below is a video of someone trying out the consumer version of the Emotiv EPOC that offers a good look at the device (unfortunately, the audio cuts out halfway through):

Nam Do, the founder of Emotiv, also plans to put this technology to other uses, such as focus testing. Rumor has it that he'll be working on focus testing James Cameron's Avatar to gauge if what audience members say about the movie matches up to what their brains are telling us.

Future tech: Interview with Emotiv co-founder Nam Do, and the science behind mind control [PC Magazine via Slashdot]

Co-written by lead Mass Effect game writer Mac Walters and Star Wars: Knights Of The Old Republic's John Jackson Miller, with art from Star Wars: Legacy's Omar Francia, the comic "reveals an essential moment in the life of Commander Shepard," according to publisher Dark Horse Comics:

The eagerly anticipated sequel to the blockbuster science-fiction epic that IGN.com named the #1 Xbox 360 game of all time, Mass Effect 2 begins with the disappearance of Commander Shepard. The story of what happens next — exclusive to these comics — will have the commander's companion Dr. Liara T'Soni undertake a deadly mission of extraordinary importance in the Milky Way's lawless Terminus Systems.

Mass Effect: Redemption is released January 6th, ahead of the January 26th release of the videogame.

Moss, who also created a clever series of black and red movie posters, and recently designed the brilliant, Hitchcockian Lost Locke poster, drew up this handy survival guide for the A Life Well Wasted podcast. This, and other posters by Moss, will be available in the podcast's store.

[A Life Well Wasted via GeekTyrant]

[via Geekologie]

I've always enjoyed the casual Tekken Cosplay, but a whole film about the game, without the crazy hair? I dunno. These new sales pictures aren't selling it for me. Unlike this fan-made trailer for Tekken pointed out by Topless Robot. Now that's a hyper stylized fighting movie I can get behind.

For a better look check out Coming Soon.

Based on a novel by Dmitry Glukhovsky, Metro 2033 takes place 20 years after an apocalyptic event that wipes out most of the human race. It's being developed for THQ by Ukrainian studio 4A Games. [THQ Games on Flickr]

You can see more of Thomas' amazing work - including a ton of videogame design - on his website. I first came across his work via Concept Ships.

The video above comes from our roundup of Spore's most demented and inspired pornographic creations, a while back, gathered into one giant sexy music video. And now that Hollywood is interested in making Spore the movie, we demand it include some Sporn.

Chris Wedge (Ice Age) is producing the film, while the writers from Disney's latest animation project The Princess and the Frog, are writing the script.

"I'm always looking for unique worlds to go to in animation," Wedge said. "From every perspective — visually, thematically and comedically — the world of 'Spore' provides the potential to put something truly original on the screen."

That's the truth. We can't imagine an interesting Spore movie without some unconventional genitalia bursting out on screen. That's one clever way to market it as a tent pole production, no?

[Variety]

This game has a long, long wait but thankfully these images seem to promise an MMO world unlike any other. The detail is astounding, even on different planets. In this MMO players will be able to customize characters and their ships. Exploration isn't limited to already-existing Trek planets. And the game will include Trek alien races such as the Andorians and Klingons, which you can see in this gallery.

[More pictures via Massively]

MakingOf spoke with Kevin Shortt, the lead scriptwriter for the Avatar game. The game's release actually predates the film's; it hits shelves on November 24th, when we won't see the full feature film until December 18th. Although the game is designed to be an immersive experience — one that delves farther into the mythos of Pandora and the Na'Vi than the film does — we apparently shouldn't expect any spoilers for the movie's storyline. The Avatar game and the Avatar film follow entirely different plots, though the human-Na'Vi conflict appears central to both.

In the interview below, Shortt talks a bit about his process and working with James Cameron, and shows some shots of the gameplay. They're not nearly as slickly animated as the film, but they do offer a sense of Pandora's world and creature design, including the planet's bioluminescent lifeforms:

And here is a more promo-y video where Cameron and his crew hype the game and Pandora itself:

[MakingOf]

The Empire Changes Strategy [Star Wars: The Old Republic]

According to a study carried out by Russell Beale and Matthew Bond of the University of Birmingham in the UK, gamers value social aspects of gaming and pricing over storytelling and graphics. The two analyzed game reviews to find what mattered most in determining "good gaming," and found that the cost of the game, and whether or not the game offers chances for others to become involved in the experience outweighed bad storytelling or poor graphics.

Plot and graphics not paramount in videogame success [New Scientist]

Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2 Launch Trailer [Comic Book Resources]

In a similar to the traditional Turing Test, BotPrize judges watched game play of a human player and a bot, and were asked to select which player was which. A $6000 grand prize was offered to any programmer whose bot could fool the judges 80 percent of the time. No one took home the gold, but one programmer did receive a $1700 for creating the most deceptively human bot. Below is a video comparing human play to bot play:

A Turing Test and Cash Prize for Human-Like Video Game Bots [Popular Science]

[IGN] (Via)

We chatted with lovely Amber Valetta about the cold and cruel futuristic world Crank's Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor created for Gamer. A world where people can control others like puppets, and believe you me, that's hardest on the ladies. Especially when your user makes you dress up in tiny blue short-shorts and crazy orange wigs. Valetta talked about what it all means, and what the Grey Goo theory has to do with Gamer.

So you were a sociology major ... what do you think you learned about people in general in this whole experience?
I think first and foremost films are for enjoyment. The arts in general are for two things: they're for entertainment purposes, but they're also to reflect our dreams, our hopes, the present, the future, the past. Whether it's good or bad.

So, I think that this movie says a lot about what's going on today and also where we could possibly be moving to in a darker future. And I think that on a psychological level, if you look at the scheme of maybe a wider consciousness, there is this lack of intimacy, this acceptance of exploitation, this desensitization to violence and sex. And I think that's what this movie is really, on a deeper level, really showing and saying.

To what degree would you sell yourself? I would give my life for my son; and in this movie my character would give her life for her daughter, and she does. She's willing to be brutally ... I mean, they softened it a bit, but she's brutalized. And Gerard Butler's character is fighting for his life. So there are two people who are going to the most extremes to get back to one another and to their child, so I think there's something unique and interesting about those characters in the movie, but there's also something interesting about the bigger social commentary of what the film's saying. And it's ... disturbing, it is disturbing.

How do you think people will react to it overall?

I think there are going to be different reactions. I think people are gonna totally get off on that it's a ride; the film looks like a video game in the sense that it's constantly moving, and angles are all over the place, and so I think there's going to be that aspect. I think there's gonna be people who just love action, I think there's gonna be people who are so into the futuristic element of it, with the nanotechnology [the tech Gamer uses to control humans], and then I think there's some people who will just get into the whole thing of it, you know? And I'm sure it's gonna not be for everybody. This movie is not for everybody.

When you say 'not for everybody,' do you mean the violence?
Yeah, I mean, I would never show it to my son. Maybe when he's like, a teenager or something, but I would never show it to my son.

Are you worried that ... there's a 'humanist thesis' to the film, but it's an awful lot of blow-shit-up action?

Oh yeah, but the thing is - that [thesis] in itself is a satirical point of view. It's also showing you how, we don't give a shit. We'll just blow shit up and everybody will be all "Yay!" you know?

How much of it the satirical aspect was discussed on set?

I think the directors [Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor] knew exactly what they were doing; in fact I know they knew what they were doing. We talked about nanotechnology, we talked about the kind of subtext that was going on. But then, at the same time, they know they're there to entertain. It's not like we're all trying to get on a soapbox and be like, stuffing some message down people's throat. I think the point of an artist is expressing different ideas and showing different things, whether it's through this kind of avenue or something else. But I definitely know they knew what they were doing. I know they thought it was funny because that's the kind of guys they are. They laugh, but I think they also think it's ... I mean, we talked about how nanotechnology is terrifying.

I don't know, I think this movie definitely pushes some buttons; it pushes my buttons even.

You've got one strange futuristic ensemble on for most of this film. Were there any other favorite little world-building moments?

They let me be extremely involved with costume, hair and makeup and we all got to share ideas and from day one when we tested different looks it was really clear to me that when I was in society, there was going to ... those aspects were going to be so important to me, (like) the costume.

My gamer creates an avatar; so it was vital to the character. When my character, Angie, is in her real life, I had to be as raw and scrubbed down - I was like, please don't put any makeup, as little as possible; the hair, I would (say), 'Let's not wash the hair' - we tried to stay as true to form as we could.
And then all the sets were just amazing. I mean really really cool. Like the scenes with Milo were great. It was really crazy; and then the club scene, the raves -

Gamer went through a lot of edits, what got cut that maybe you wish or you can't wait for people to see in the DVD release or bonus features?

Emovie gets cut, but this movie in particular, the way they wanted the movie to look ... was like this constant movement and action, so I don't think the movie was cut because of this or that. I think it's the way they wanted the movie to speak to people. Those things coming out on DVD? I think there are extended scenes with Milo and I that are great, some of the rave, I think there was some really great stuff in the rave that they didn't show because the rave's only 20, not even, maybe 10-15 seconds?

On the in-game nanotechnology....

I think the scary thing is is that nanotechnology is so ... we just don't know that much. We don't really know what it can do if it gets inside of you, the human body. It's not intend to go inside the human body, and they're already putting it out on the market. And there's the whole Grey Goo theory [that is referenced in the film].

Can you elaborate about that?

You should ask (Mark an Brian) about the grey goo theory. It's just the theory that nanotechnology because it's so tiny can pass even the membrane of your brain, but it can do that with anything. So they would take over. It's kinda like that book Crichton wrote, Prey.

So this cup of coffee could just become a mess of cells because nanotechnology is screwing up the molecules?

Exactly.

Gamer comes out this Friday September 4th.

It should be pointed out that, right now, no-one really seems to have a clear idea of what'll happen next. For one thing, the sale isn't even expected to be completed until the end of the year, shareholders and antitrust oversight approval pending, and for another, if Joe Quesada is to be believed, maybe there'll be no obvious change:

Everybody take a deep breath, all your favorite comics remain unchanged and [Marvel editor] Tom Brevoort remains grouchy.

So what do both companies actually get from this buyout? Marvel, for their part, go from being the fourth biggest worldwide entertainment brand to being part of the biggest, with all the distribution and licensing perks that come with that. Disney, as the official press release states, get access to Marvel's IP - which arguably gives them the potential to own the tween/teen male market in the same way that they currently own the female market with the Princesses brand, High School Musical and its like, and pop moppets like the Jonas Brothers. They also get Marvel Studios, which had been considered one of the most successful independent movie studios of recent years. Except... it's not necessarily as simple as all of that.
Here are existing licensing deals that Marvel has in place, that Disney said yesterday they would honor, and which place all of this outside of Disney's control (for now):

Film
Marvel's current distribution deal with Paramount (Viacom-owned) covers the next five Marvel pictures including Iron Man 2 (2010), Thor (2011), Captain America (2011), The Avengers (2012) and Iron Man 3 (2012/2013). Paramount confirmed the films to be produced under their Marvel agreement. These films would all flow thru to Paramount's new pay TV network EPIX, however, all new properties beyond these would likely flow through Disney's output partner (currently Starz).

X-Men property has been licensed to 20th Century Fox (News Corp. owned) while Spider-Man has been licensed to Sony, which seems to have plans for the next three installments.

Theme Parks
It appears that Universal Studios maintains geographical rights to Marvel IP for as long as they have Marvel-related rides/attractions at the park (unclear if this also includes merchandise that exists within its parks today). In other words, Walt Disney World in Orlando is unlikely to see a Spiderman/Hulk themed attraction for the foreseeable future. The following excerpt comes from Universal City Development Partners' (owner of Universal Studios Orlando) 10-K: "We have geographical exclusivity east of the Mississippi River with regard to the specific Marvel characters we utilize. The license for the Marvel properties does not prohibit its assignment and is for the duration of our use of attractions themed around Marvel characters."

Video Games
THQ: Multi-year deal signed in May 2008 for Marvel Super Hero Squad.
Activision: Deal signed Nov 2005 and goes through 2017 for Spider Man and X-Men
Sega: Multi-year deal signed in April 2007 for Captain America, Hulk, Thor and Iron Man

Toys
Hasbro 10K: "Subsequent to December 28, 2008, the Company entered into an agreement with Marvel that resulted in the extension of the current agreement from the end of 2011 through the end of 2017."

Deadline Hollywood's Nikki Finke has the list of characters specifically licensed for Universal's theme parks:

For starters, here's the main list of licensed characters at Marvel Island inside Universal Orlando's Islands Of Adventure (provided me by Universal): Spider-Man (also attraction), Dr. Doom (also attraction), Hulk (also attraction), Storm (also attraction), Captain America, Cyclops, Green Goblin, Rogue, Storm, Wolverine, "and lots more if you include stores and dining," a Uni exec tells me.
Paramount tells me Iron Man and Thor also are included.

According to other sources, here are the characters by Attractions, Walk Around, and Shop:

Attractions (Characters licensed for the attraction use, but not necessarily for walk-around. Some in the attractions list are also licensed for walk-around, but not all.): Spider-Man, Doc Oc, Scream, Electro, Hydro-Man, Hobgoblin, J. Jonah Jameson, Hulk/Bruce Banner, Dr. Doom, Fantastic Four (as a group, not individually), Storm, Magneto, Professor X.

Walk around and/or Shop: Green Goblin, Cyclops, Rogue, Wolverine, Fantastic 4 (restaurant / walk around), Captain America (restaurant / walk around), Kingpin (shop / walk around), Merch (shop)

So no movies until 2013, no toys until 2017, and no theme parks or videogames for the big name characters in the foreseeable future, either. What does Disney actually get for their $4 billion right now? Maybe television and comics? Former Marvel editor-in-chief and Disney Adventures creator Marv Wolfman thinks so, even if he's not too hopeful about that whole "comics" thing:

Publishing. Well, that's the big one, isn't it? At least for us. Actually, only for us. The big ones in reality are movies, TV and video games. One major video game hit can make more money than 95% of all movies. But let's talk comics. What division will that fall under? Publishing? Movies? Consumer Products? Something else? What happens to Marvel Comics will depend on which Disney company it falls under and as of 1:30PM, I don't know the answer to that.

With this level of uncertainty, it's no surprise that some feel that Disney paid too much for what they're actually getting (although others feel just the opposite).

There are other questions still left to be answered: What happens to Disney's existing comic deals with Boom! Studios and their own Kingdom Comics line? Will Disney and/or Marvel look for alternate distribution for their comics, and if so, are we looking at another Heroes World situation? With all this talk of Marvel's 5000-strong character base, does Disney really believe that there are multiple Iron Man-scale successes in there - and what happens when superheroes fall out of fashion? All of these will, undoubtedly, be answered at some point in the near future, but for now, as the dust settles, the most important question may end up being: Is it all worth it?

Wolverine/Donald Duck by SaiyaGina, Punisher/Mickey Mouse by AlexFugazi, Theme Park image by Fuzzcat.