The Digital Antiquarian: Origin Sells Out

The Digital Antiquarian is back — not that he ever really left, but he hasn’t touched on the topic of Ultima for a while — with another article about Origin Systems, this time focusing on their acquisition by Electronic Arts. As you might expect, it’s a lengthy piece, and it sets the stage by noting the long-standing bad blood between the two companies (though one is left with the impression that most of the bad vibes flowed from Origin toward EA):

…Richard Garriott wasn’t one to forgive even a small personal slight easily, much less a full-blown threat to destroy his company. From 1987 on, EA was Public Enemy #1 at Origin, a status which Garriott marked in ways that only seemed to grow pettier as time went on. Garriott built a mausoleum for “Pirt Snikwah” — the name of Trip Hawkins, EA’s founder and chief executive, spelled backward — at his Austin mansion of Britannia Manor. Ultima V‘s parser treated the phrase “Electronic Arts” like a curse word; Ultima VI included a gang of evil pirates named after some of the more prominent members of EA’s executive staff. Time really did seem to make Garriott more rather than less bitter. Among his relatively few detail-oriented contributions to Ultima VII were a set of infernal inter-dimensional generators whose shapes together formed the EA logo. He also demanded that the two villains who went on a murder spree across Britannia in that game be named Elizabeth and Abraham. Just to drive the point home, the pair worked for a “Destroyer of Worlds” — an inversion of Origin’s longstanding tagline of “We Create Worlds.”

Still, feuding aside, Origin was in a significant financial bind. Some of that was due to the changing nature of the gaming industry, but some of it was a monster of their own making:

The fact was, Origin was in a serious financial bind — not a unique one in their evolving industry, but one which their unique circumstances had made more severe for them than for most others. Everyone in the industry, Origin included, was looking ahead to a very near future when the enormous storage capacity of CD-ROM, combined with improving graphics and sound and exploding numbers of computers in homes, would allow computer games to join television, movies, and music as a staple of mainstream entertainment rather than a niche hobby. Products suitable for this new world order needed to go into development now in order to be on store shelves to greet it when it arrived. These next-generation products with their vastly higher audiovisual standards couldn’t be funded entirely out of the proceeds from current games. They required alternative forms of financing.

For Origin, this issue, which really was well-nigh universal among their peers, was further complicated by the realities of being a relatively small company without a lot of product diversification. A few underwhelming attempts to bring older Ultima games to the Nintendo Entertainment System aside, they had no real presence on videogame consoles, a market which dwarfed that of computer games, and had just two viable product lines even on computers: Ultima and Wing Commander. This lack of diversification left them in a decidedly risky position, where the failure of a single major release in either of those franchises could conceivably bring down the whole company.

The article goes on from there, discussing the terms of the sale and some of the early teething pains that were experienced as the two companies integrated. Origin’s growth during this time also merits some coverage, as does the performance of the games that it had in release when the deal was struck. I want to draw attention to one particular detail regarding the Ultima games in particular here, which I gather the Antiquarian mentioned when he discussed Ultima 7 back in February (albeit I missed seeing it then, or else do not recall having seen it):

Ultima VII: The Black Gate, while it had been far from an outright commercial failure, had garnered a more muted response than Origin had hoped and planned for, plagued as its launch had been by bugs, high system requirements, and the sheer difficulty of configuring it to run properly under the inscrutable stewardship of MS-DOSUltima Underworld, a real-time first-person spinoff of the core series developed by the Boston studio Blue Sky Productions rather than Origin themselves, had already gone a considerable distance in that direction, and upon its near-simultaneous release with Ultima VII had threatened to overshadow its more cerebral big brother completely, garnering more enthusiastic reviews and, eventually, higher sales. Needless to say, had Ultima Underworld not turned into such a success, Origin’s financial position would have been still more critical than it already was. It seemed pretty clear that this was the direction that all of Ultima needed to go.

As usual, the entirety of the article is well worth a read, so do click on through and check it out. But don’t go venturing into it expecting to find a stern indictment of Electronic Arts; if anything, prepare to come away with the impression — if you did not already have this understanding — that EA afforded Origin a large degree of freedom and leniency, more (perhaps) than it should have.

(Hat tip: Infinitron Dragon)

20 Responses

  1. Anonymous says:

    This hasn’t gotten any better. In SOTA, in Kiln, there’s 2 NPCs named Chris Young and Neil Yates (based on EA executives Chris Yates and Neil Young) – their dialog implies they are crooked con artists.

  2. Infinitron says:

    Here’s the paragraph from the February Ultima VII article: https://www.filfre.net/2019/02/ultima-vii/

    A Computer Gaming World readers’ poll published in the March 1993 issue — i.e., exactly one year after Ultima VII‘s release — saw it ranked as the respondents’ 30th favorite current game, not exactly a spectacular showing for such a major title. Wing Commander II, by way of comparison, was still in position six, Ultima Underworld — which was now outselling Ultima VII by a considerable margin — in a tie for third. It would be incorrect to call Ultima VII a flop, or to imply that it wasn’t thoroughly enjoyed by many of those who played it back in the day. But for Origin the facts remained when all was said and done that it had sold less well than either of the aforementioned two games after costing at least twice as much to make. These hard facts contributed to the feeling inside the company that, if it wasn’t time to follow Charles Ardai’s advice and let sleeping Ultimas lie for a while, it was time to change up the gameplay formula in a major way. After all, Ultima Underworld had done just that, and look how well that had worked out.

  3. Infinity Dragon says:

    link to the Feb Ultima 7 article?

  4. TruthDragon says:

    “But don’t go venturing into it expecting to find a stern indictment of Electronic Arts; if anything, prepare to come away with the impression — if you did not already have this understanding — that EA afforded Origin a large degree of freedom and leniency, more (perhaps) than it should have.”

    In other words, don’t believe everything you’ve heard from Richard Garriott for the past 20+ years.

    • WtF Dragon says:

      There’s a lot that’s been said by a number of ex-Origin people that shouldn’t necessarily be taken at face value.

      EA was certainly made out to seem the villain whenever it was convenient (e.g. to explain U8’s issues, or U9’s issues, or UXO’s cancellation, etc.). And to be fair, some of the blame was indeed theirs.

      But we’ve heard now from multiple sources (not just the Antiquarian here) that Origin was… chaotic, a lot of the time, and had a penchant for chasing after every shiny new tech feature (and burning through money as they went). Which would probably have been fine had they consistently produced hits that generated massive sales…but that just wasn’t the case.

      And we’ve seen now, with both Richard Garriott and Chris Roberts’ new games, that absent a publisher telling them to ship or kill the game, the games either have significant issues…or never seem to materialize despite massive expenditure.

      • Infinitron says:

        The most valid criticism of EA with regard to Ultima and Origin is that they demonstrated poor stewardship and poor foresight. The studio could have been salvaged if they’d listened to the right people and developed a long-term plan.

        And actually, maybe that would have happened if not for the success of Ultima Online, which ended up as a sort of “fool’s gold”, preventing Origin from undergoing necessary reforms. “It’s okay that we’ve lost our ability to develop appealing single-player franchises, we have Ultima Online!”

      • Kilthan says:

        @infinitron That seems to have been EA’s biggest problem for years. They’d buy studios with beloved IPs, and then not really know what to do with them. They still haven’t figured this out.

        I feel like the best thing EA could do to reform that aspect of their reputation would be to license out their derelict IPs to small developers and see what can be accomplished. For instance, the story that BeamDog first wanted to remake/remaster the Ultima series. Find a team that wants to take on the challenge, license it out them, and realize its not costing EA anything since they’re not using the IP anyway.

        On the other hand Ultima: Forever would be a point in the “EA is evil column” Remember how the game was originally going to see a PC and Android port? remember why they were canceled? They said it was because the majority of beta testers were playing on iOS. They didn’t mention (at the time) that a majority of beta testers selected were those who intended to play on iOS in the first place. And compare monetization in that vs Dungeon Keeper mobile. DK mobile can still be played, U4e cannot.

        If you’ve ever worked for a company owned by a bigger company, you know that you tip toe in fear of the next set of insane orders coming down from on high.

        When I worked in a mail room for a publishing company we were ordered to change our paper supplier from a local place to a national chain, at three times the cost. We warned corporate that doing so would burn through our paper budget in month, two at most. After we used our paper budget the next month we received orders to no longer make paper free available to employees. I had to literally lock the paper up, by order of corporate.

        This is why i believe that both parties are to blame. Origin clearly had the history of being chaotic, but EA’s reputation as being evil and controlling existed before they purchased Origin, and before RG said anything about them.

      • WtF Dragon says:

        The problem with EA’s reputation as evil and controlling is that it’s not wholly compatible with the criticism that EA didn’t demonstrate adequate – or any – stewardship of the companies it acquired.

        You can’t be evil and controlling, micromanaging companies to their literal deaths, and also be a largely absent authority figure who doesn’t act to rein in the wild excesses of companies sooner, steering them down a more focused path.

      • Infinitron says:

        I feel like the best thing EA could do to reform that aspect of their reputation would be to license out their derelict IPs to small developers and see what can be accomplished.

        What do you think Wasteland 2 and Bard’s Tale IV were?

      • WtF Dragon says:

        I don’t disagree!

  5. Micro Magic says:

    Interesting. It makes me wonder, how did they patch games in the early 90’s? Did you have to call Origin? Did they just send you out a floppy for free? What was that process like?

    • Zeph Grey says:

      That was mostly it, though there were BBSs, Bulletin Board Systems. I don’t know how old you are, but basically they were private computers or networks that you called using a dial-up modem (like seriously, on the PHONE) and a lot of them had file caches of various games and updates you could download…at an excruciatingly slow pace. That is, if you even knew a patch was needed or existed, which, without the internet, you were unlikely to hear about except maybe through said BBSs.

      We’ve come a long way.

      And not… as games were shipped far more complete in those days. So…2 steps forward and like, 3 to the left and slightly backward?

      • WtF Dragon says:

        I’m not sure “far more complete” is an entirely correct way to put it. But certainly the way in which games are delivered to us now has changed how they are developed and patched. In the era of 3.5″ diskettes (and before), a “day one” patch would have been unheard of, whereas now it is a common thing. But does that mean games today are more buggy or less complete? Or does it mean that developers have more ability to patch on the fly, whereas in previous decades we’d have just clenched our teeth and powered through the bugs?

      • Kilthan says:

        I’d say they were more stable, but not more complete. Look at Serpent Isle. The game is mostly stable, and you have to be actively seeking out game breaking bugs to find them (i’ve been playing it since release way back when and only had it barf out on me once, I some how got the ship to Moonshade stuck). But they also had to cut a significant portion of the story because it was taking too long to make everything work right (or EA said “ship it now!” or a combination of both).

        Compare it to Ultima IX at when the internet was still young. That game was buggy and broken as all get out at launch, the released patches and eventually the updated install disk.

        I think the bigger issue is that being able to do ‘day one patches’ and constant updates has given developers, (especially AAA and crowd funded ones) the illusion that they have infinite time to fix bugs, but limited time to get certain aspects ready. Sadly, this translates into monetization systems being ready before launch, but other parts of the game seriously lacking.

        From the complaints about SotA (which I enjoy, but admit is nothing like what I was hoping for and has some serious problems), to No Man’s Sky to Fallout 76 to almost every game the AAA studios release. Live services have to be ready at launch to milk the whales and turn a profit, but content, bug fixes, gameplay, all of that can wait.

        I got the updates for Doom back in the day from guys my dad knew that were big on the BBS’s of the time.

        Also, i miss being 10 or 11 and experiencing a MUD for the first time. Those were the days.

      • WtF Dragon says:

        To push back a little, I might point out that a modern game – even if it has relatively simplistic gameplay – will tend to be a more programmatically complicated thing than the games of yesterdecade, especially if it’s a 3D game. And the more code there is – and the more complex the code gets – the number of errors in that code will increase, and then not necessarily linearly with code complexity (which is to say: errors could occur with exponentially greater frequency).

        On the other hand, internet bandwidths have greatly increased since yesterdecade as well; I can regularly pull 800 Mbps downloads at home, peaking at 1 Gbps at times…and I have a grandfathered, mid-tier internet service package. But even if someone is only pulling down 25 Mbps at home, that’s still orders of.magnitide faster than what the average home user’s internet speed would have been in, say, 1992. And I don’t see it as a bad thing if developers opt to take advantage of this to deliver rapid and timely patches, even “at launch” patches, for their games.

      • Zeph Grey says:

        This is more or less what I was trying to get at. We’re not all better than we were in years passed, but not all better either. Just in a different place. Overall, I’d say we have a net gain, but there are definitely new frustrations that we would have never thought of before.

        And some devs have frankly only benefited from the advent of the internet because they’ve always been shipping buggy, broken games that can actually someday BE fixed now. I still have no idea how Bethesda survived Daggerfall.

      • Kilthan says:

        I’d say in most cases that yeah, its better now, but we also can’t deny that many devs are using the ability to update on the fly as an excuse to ignore bug fixes for other features. And that’s to say nothing about shipping half a game and charging for the other half as DLC, or, like with fighting games, having the first batch of paid DLC characters ready at launch and on the disc, but still charging extra for them. And, yes, we had expansion packs back in the day, but compare Serpent Isle’s “the Silver Seed” to most DLC packs today, or worse, compare Starcraft: Brood War to ANY DLC today, It almost doubled the number of missions in the game as well as adding new units, sounds, cinematics, etc.

        Also, i’m supremely jealous of your internet, or, well, almost anyones. Our choices in my area is either bottom tier cable with data caps that would make AOL laugh or DSL so slow it could be out paced by the Pony Express. I have the DSL because its cheap and has no data cap, but i’m lucky If I hit 700kbps during the best of times. Even if I bought a game at launch, day one patches mean i couldn’t play it that day anyway. SOTA updates generally are a two night affair, to say nothing of other games with big footprints.

      • WtF Dragon says:

        There are still areas that are underserved for internet access, for sure. Though even 700 kbps is still quite a lot more than the 14.4 and 28.8 modems that I used not half a lifetime ago. It doesn’t make those SOTA updates go any faster, and two nights is a long wait…but on the other hand, such updates are still a possibility now.

        There are some underhanded practices in play when it comes to things like DLC. It’s one thing if the content is either fully there in the install and has been pay-gated away from players (or worse: built, included, then removed again and sold separately), though it’s quite another thing if what’s present is bits and pieces of the DLC content – basically, the means for it to hook into the game – with the majority of the actual content not present until the add-on is installed. This goes back to the increased complexity of games today; whereas Forge of Virtue could just add a whole new island to U7 out of thin air (as it were), nowadays the developers would have to build support for the addition of that island into the initial release of the game, even if the island and its content weren’t fully added thereto for another year.