PC Gamer mentions our favorite game
- Thread starter Haliwali
- Start date
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
Funny, any Ultima fan will tell the opposite story. 
I don't think the reality is anywhere near so simple as that.
First, keep in mind that EA saved Origin well before most of the Wing Commander games we know and love were a gleam in Chris Roberts' eye. Privateer, Wing Commander III, IV, Prophecy and many others were all developed under EA's watch and with EA's money.
Second, Electronic Arts continued to develop Wing Commander games in exactly the same way that they continued to develop Ultima games after 1998... as massively multiplayer projects. And *none* of those, for either franchise, panned out.
I can't speak to mismanagement or how much corporate interference there was or anything of that nature... but it seems to me that what ultimately 'killed' Origin was their inability to replicate the impossible success of Ultima Online.
They got 'lucky' and invented an entirely new way to make money, which made them the de facto gold standard in that field... so EA went with Privateer Online and Ultima Online 2 (and Harry Potter Online!) instead of Wing Commander 7 and Ultima 10. It just never worked out again.
... but I don't think this story is over yet, do you?
I don't think the reality is anywhere near so simple as that.
First, keep in mind that EA saved Origin well before most of the Wing Commander games we know and love were a gleam in Chris Roberts' eye. Privateer, Wing Commander III, IV, Prophecy and many others were all developed under EA's watch and with EA's money.
Second, Electronic Arts continued to develop Wing Commander games in exactly the same way that they continued to develop Ultima games after 1998... as massively multiplayer projects. And *none* of those, for either franchise, panned out.
I can't speak to mismanagement or how much corporate interference there was or anything of that nature... but it seems to me that what ultimately 'killed' Origin was their inability to replicate the impossible success of Ultima Online.
They got 'lucky' and invented an entirely new way to make money, which made them the de facto gold standard in that field... so EA went with Privateer Online and Ultima Online 2 (and Harry Potter Online!) instead of Wing Commander 7 and Ultima 10. It just never worked out again.
... but I don't think this story is over yet, do you?
AD
Finder of things, Doer of stuff
Funny, any Ultima fan will tell the opposite story.
I don't think the reality is anywhere near so simple as that.
First, keep in mind that EA saved Origin well before most of the Wing Commander games we know and love were a gleam in Chris Roberts' eye. Privateer, Wing Commander III, IV, Prophecy and many others were all developed under EA's watch and with EA's money.
Second, Electronic Arts continued to develop Wing Commander games in exactly the same way that they continued to develop Ultima games after 1998... as massively multiplayer projects. And *none* of those, for either franchise, panned out.
I can't speak to mismanagement or how much corporate interference there was or anything of that nature... but it seems to me that what ultimately 'killed' Origin was their inability to replicate the impossible success of Ultima Online.
They got 'lucky' and invented an entirely new way to make money, which made them the de facto gold standard in that field... so EA went with Privateer Online and Ultima Online 2 (and Harry Potter Online!) instead of Wing Commander 7 and Ultima 10. It just never worked out again.
... but I don't think this story is over yet, do you?
Even before the 'onlines' wasn't there a lot of talk about money squandered on countless projects that ultimately ended up canceled (and I don't mean WC or ultima)? By the time of WC prophecy they were in the middle of consolidating?
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
I don't think so. The rule is probably that for every cancelled game that was *announced* a good (but not spectacular) amount of money was lost. Obviously that varies - Wing Commander 2 SNES would have been peanuts compared to what they blew on Ultima Online 2 and then Ultima X.
For all the other sexy projects you hear about now that never had glossy magazine photos or E3 demos... they're the Nazi super-jets which only bombed New York on paper. The tech demo of the WC RTS and the month of work that went into the WC FPS and the ship sketches they did for Maniac Missions and so forth are all really *interesting* to us, but at the same time were all part of the ordinary planning process that resulted in the games we know.
The things that cost a *lot* of money were the commercial failures and games that were successes but cost too much to develop. The former were necessary to a degree, though - what EA didn't (and perhaps still doesn't) understand is that for every Ultima Online that strikes oil you're probably also going to need to drill a few Cybermages.
The latter... well, I certainly won't stand up and say don't let Chris Roberts design any more games.
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
As for the article, I don't entirely agree.
Lets admit it: Origin wasn't great because everything they did was groundbreaking. They were great because they could put so much into so many products and then relentlessly follow up the ones that worked. Wing Commander changed the way games work... while Omega and Bad Bood and Space Rogue and what not sat on the shelves. We should drop all or pretentions: our group loves Origin for following the former success with years and years of slight evolutions, not for all the good hearted attempts that didn't quite work out so well.
... and that's what EA recognized but failed to completely understand. They knew that Origin should follow up Ultima Online with the same set of radiating spinoffs - Privateer Online, Harry Potter Online, Ultima Online 2 and so forth. That was the right choice, for the situation - but they lost faith somewhere and didn't give these products a chance to stick to the wall. If we'd had Origin releasing Privateer Online, Ultima Online 2, Crusader Online, etc. then maybe one of them (Priv!) would have been a smash hit and the cycle would have continued.
But one after another these projects died for various reasons, which was the fault of both 'sides'. Privateer Online went up against the pet 'Earth and Beyond' project from the then-darlings team at Westwood in the budget contest and died a crib death when it shouldn't have. There's some irony for you: EA's worst decision was going with something new and original and a little bit weird (and bad, but you can't know that then) instead of their tried and true franchise. And you know, it turns out people didn't really care about Westwood games that didn't have C&C in their name -- and both studios paid deadly for that mistake. Who's fault? Corporate for making the call, Westwood for setting out to knock off Origin, Origin for not having a more budget-conscious pitch...
Ultima Online 2... I have no idea. All I can say is that my bet is that forces conspired to make UO2 a stupid game that didn't appeal to anyone. In order to get around the elephant in the room (who will be buying UO2? People trading in their *UO1* accounts and no one else...) Origin made and marketed a bizarre project instead of an Ultima game. Cyborgs and dancing elf-animals and steampunk cities? You don't deliberately turn off your existing audience just because you're not sure you can also earn a new one. It went on for month after month after month and EA finally said enough. I'm betting that amazing real estate in Austin was more valuable than any amount of money EA predicted they could make with what became such a strange project. And with all of Origin's eggs in one basket...
Lets admit it: Origin wasn't great because everything they did was groundbreaking. They were great because they could put so much into so many products and then relentlessly follow up the ones that worked. Wing Commander changed the way games work... while Omega and Bad Bood and Space Rogue and what not sat on the shelves. We should drop all or pretentions: our group loves Origin for following the former success with years and years of slight evolutions, not for all the good hearted attempts that didn't quite work out so well.
... and that's what EA recognized but failed to completely understand. They knew that Origin should follow up Ultima Online with the same set of radiating spinoffs - Privateer Online, Harry Potter Online, Ultima Online 2 and so forth. That was the right choice, for the situation - but they lost faith somewhere and didn't give these products a chance to stick to the wall. If we'd had Origin releasing Privateer Online, Ultima Online 2, Crusader Online, etc. then maybe one of them (Priv!) would have been a smash hit and the cycle would have continued.
But one after another these projects died for various reasons, which was the fault of both 'sides'. Privateer Online went up against the pet 'Earth and Beyond' project from the then-darlings team at Westwood in the budget contest and died a crib death when it shouldn't have. There's some irony for you: EA's worst decision was going with something new and original and a little bit weird (and bad, but you can't know that then) instead of their tried and true franchise. And you know, it turns out people didn't really care about Westwood games that didn't have C&C in their name -- and both studios paid deadly for that mistake. Who's fault? Corporate for making the call, Westwood for setting out to knock off Origin, Origin for not having a more budget-conscious pitch...
Ultima Online 2... I have no idea. All I can say is that my bet is that forces conspired to make UO2 a stupid game that didn't appeal to anyone. In order to get around the elephant in the room (who will be buying UO2? People trading in their *UO1* accounts and no one else...) Origin made and marketed a bizarre project instead of an Ultima game. Cyborgs and dancing elf-animals and steampunk cities? You don't deliberately turn off your existing audience just because you're not sure you can also earn a new one. It went on for month after month after month and EA finally said enough. I'm betting that amazing real estate in Austin was more valuable than any amount of money EA predicted they could make with what became such a strange project. And with all of Origin's eggs in one basket...
Edfilho
Cry some more!
I think that fact is that we remain WC-less, at least on the PC, the series home platform. The Xbox game was a nice diversion, but it fell pretty short of a full WC game like W1, 2, priv, so on. I mean, the best thing about it, universe-wise, was the manual.
Sure, EA payed for most of the WC games we love, but they also put the series on the freezer, so it's at least a draw. Some good things and some bad things. They do seem to be getting over their Evil Corp complex, what with another new C&C release, in the REd Alert universe, no less, and two major new IPs, Mirror's Edge and Dead Space -- the later being a prime example of pre-release marketing done REALLY right, with an awesome site and really good videocomics online.
It is wrong to paint EA as the big bad guy, but they ain't no patron saints either. They did us very right in the past, but also fucked up seriously. BTW, I'm an Ultima fan and I weep for the mess the series became after 7. 8 was a let down and 9 was a revolting mess that fucked up the lore royally. Sure, we can put the blame on Origin for that, but Odyssey was looking good, and it got canned.
My point is, it is very stupid to either hate or love EA unconditionally. they at least screwed up as often as they did right, at least in the Origin subject.
Sure, EA payed for most of the WC games we love, but they also put the series on the freezer, so it's at least a draw. Some good things and some bad things. They do seem to be getting over their Evil Corp complex, what with another new C&C release, in the REd Alert universe, no less, and two major new IPs, Mirror's Edge and Dead Space -- the later being a prime example of pre-release marketing done REALLY right, with an awesome site and really good videocomics online.
It is wrong to paint EA as the big bad guy, but they ain't no patron saints either. They did us very right in the past, but also fucked up seriously. BTW, I'm an Ultima fan and I weep for the mess the series became after 7. 8 was a let down and 9 was a revolting mess that fucked up the lore royally. Sure, we can put the blame on Origin for that, but Odyssey was looking good, and it got canned.
My point is, it is very stupid to either hate or love EA unconditionally. they at least screwed up as often as they did right, at least in the Origin subject.
Delance
Victory, you say?
Good article. Blizzard succeeded (and, more importantly, survived, even under Activion/Vivendi/Whatever) where Origin and Westwood failed.
I'm not sure the whole online gaming thing is entirely responsable for that. Anyone remember Bullfrog? It went under without a "World of Syndicate: Bullfrog" to blame. Maxis is still around, in a way, despite failure of The Sims Online.
The important thing is, even tough Westwood is gone, Command and Conquer 3 still got made, and with a highly improbable FMV extravaganza. Not bad news at all to WC.
I'm not sure the whole online gaming thing is entirely responsable for that. Anyone remember Bullfrog? It went under without a "World of Syndicate: Bullfrog" to blame. Maxis is still around, in a way, despite failure of The Sims Online.
The important thing is, even tough Westwood is gone, Command and Conquer 3 still got made, and with a highly improbable FMV extravaganza. Not bad news at all to WC.
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
You haven't even played the game, so you aren't really in any position to judge. Surely you know how we feel about ignorance, after all these years. Unless someone resurrects Privateer Online (and maybe not even then) you're not going to find another Wing Commander game designed as a PC title ever. The user base trumps your inane nostalgia about a "home platform" (which... isn't even true - Wing Commander games have been developed for plenty of consoles.)
I think that you could make a pretty good argument that they *were* a patron saint - since they showed up and saved the series in 1991 when Origin was dying.
EA didn't have anything to do with Ultima's slow death -- those were poor design decisions made by the Ultima team. Rather, EA continued to fund those single player Ultimas well after they became unprofitable (which is to say that it's pretty unusual that there *was* an Ultima 9 after Ultima 8).
Surely we've been over this before, though. Do you have some remembering-things issue? Do we regenerate different Edfilho's each year that start off stupid and have to be taught again? We don't really have time for that anymore.
Survived under the merger that happened... three weeks ago? Origin was still developing Wing Commander games *ten years* after being the EA buyout. There's no way to compare the two at this point.
Bullfrog imploded itself almost immediately; EA bought the company for the people, not the brand -- and those people took their stock options and left.
Delance
Victory, you say?
Well, survived until the merger. Anyway, it isn’t much about comparing their current status, but what happened to them in the last decade or so. Blizzard is one of the few companies from the early-mid 90’s still around in a recognizable form – Maxis is another. The article helps explain why that happened.
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
Electronic Arts bought Maxis more than a decade ago and their original studio was relocated to EA Redwood Shores five years ago.
Edited to add: of course, you know what classic video game company from the 1980s and 1990s is still around? ELECTRONIC ARTS, dumbos.
Despite Bandit's abrasive, sometimes humorous intolerance of ignorant statements about video game politics, this is kinda water under the bridge for the 20th time. While Blizzard and Origin are similar in that they focused on the IP's that succeeded (even if Blizzard takes a few eons between sequels, where-as Origin was doing almost one a year during their more prolific phase), the similitarity between their mergers ended there. In fact, mergers in this industry nowadays aren't as risky as business as they were when Origin was acquired by EA. It's all money and politics right now, because there's money to be had in the industry. Back then, EA pretty much gave Origin CPR. They could have both went down in flames together if it weren't for the maturation of the series that this site even exists because of.
I think what colored the difficulties, in the end, was the uncertain future of online games. UO was an unexpected success, and like all successful products, EA wanted to cash in, as did Origin, and the rest is history. There was just no model yet for moving forward from that 'industrial revolution', and wrong initial marketing choices were made. End of story.
Mergers, now, are different animals in this industry. Blizzard 'survived' until now (was it really a case of survival? They always had good sales) because they entered the game in-and-about the time where the industry was first starting to have its second renaissance, in the mid-to-late 90's. A new generation of players started off on their games. They basically did for the PC what FFIV did for JRPGs and the Playstation; gave a bunch of kids who hadn't really played games before a new experience. The PC market picked up because of Windows 95 marketing, and so more and more families were buying up computers. Blizzard had good timing.
I think what colored the difficulties, in the end, was the uncertain future of online games. UO was an unexpected success, and like all successful products, EA wanted to cash in, as did Origin, and the rest is history. There was just no model yet for moving forward from that 'industrial revolution', and wrong initial marketing choices were made. End of story.
Mergers, now, are different animals in this industry. Blizzard 'survived' until now (was it really a case of survival? They always had good sales) because they entered the game in-and-about the time where the industry was first starting to have its second renaissance, in the mid-to-late 90's. A new generation of players started off on their games. They basically did for the PC what FFIV did for JRPGs and the Playstation; gave a bunch of kids who hadn't really played games before a new experience. The PC market picked up because of Windows 95 marketing, and so more and more families were buying up computers. Blizzard had good timing.
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
The biggest way that they're different is that one was a merger and the other wasn't.
Excuse my vernacular, I meant the general acquisition. Actvision merged with Vivendi. At any rate, my ultimate point was that mergers and acquisitions in this industry aren't necessarily damning events, like they had the high risk of being in the past. There's just so much money in it, now.
One last thought I wanted to add...
The only real reason why anyone of us, specifically, could put the 'evil corp' label on EA is that they stopped making our favorite games after the turmoil of the MMO-frenzy that drowned them. It wasn't really their fault or intention. The market was changing.
Yes, there was a time - for almost a decade - where they formulaically released games. Was that any different than Ultima & Wing Commander titles you'd need to use two or three hands to count? Yes and no. The Ultima and Wing Commander games were good, and evolved (in the case of Ultima, it did a U-turn right at the end). Still, the particulars of EA's more contemporary games were bad design choices, and not so much corporate.
So, to be fair, you could say that they're now making more diverse IP choices and trying to re-balance their strength. I don't think they were ever "evil", or did anything that one couldn't understand. Obviously they've done something right to still be here after decades.
The only real reason why anyone of us, specifically, could put the 'evil corp' label on EA is that they stopped making our favorite games after the turmoil of the MMO-frenzy that drowned them. It wasn't really their fault or intention. The market was changing.
Yes, there was a time - for almost a decade - where they formulaically released games. Was that any different than Ultima & Wing Commander titles you'd need to use two or three hands to count? Yes and no. The Ultima and Wing Commander games were good, and evolved (in the case of Ultima, it did a U-turn right at the end). Still, the particulars of EA's more contemporary games were bad design choices, and not so much corporate.
So, to be fair, you could say that they're now making more diverse IP choices and trying to re-balance their strength. I don't think they were ever "evil", or did anything that one couldn't understand. Obviously they've done something right to still be here after decades.
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
I'm not quite sure what you're saying - neither of these examples was especially risky to their respective companies.
If we're talking about 'little people hurt', then I expect you'll see a heck of a lot more a heck of a lot quicker in the case of Activision/Blizzard. In fact, we already have - they've cancelled a string of publishing contracts for titles like Ghostbusters and layoffs at smaller studios like formerly-Sierra's online content group. No, John Diablo isn't going to be fired... but the guys doing the same job at seven other places now headed by the same company will be.
In contrast, EA simply bought Origin and operated it as an independant studio for many, many years without even bothering to cut duplicated departments like QA or publishing. Blaming the 1991 buyout entirely on the eventual 2004 closure is like saying that someone died because they were born. That's logic for philosophers and idiots, not thinking people.
If we're talking about 'little people hurt', then I expect you'll see a heck of a lot more a heck of a lot quicker in the case of Activision/Blizzard. In fact, we already have - they've cancelled a string of publishing contracts for titles like Ghostbusters and layoffs at smaller studios like formerly-Sierra's online content group. No, John Diablo isn't going to be fired... but the guys doing the same job at seven other places now headed by the same company will be.
In contrast, EA simply bought Origin and operated it as an independant studio for many, many years without even bothering to cut duplicated departments like QA or publishing. Blaming the 1991 buyout entirely on the eventual 2004 closure is like saying that someone died because they were born. That's logic for philosophers and idiots, not thinking people.
Bandit - my point is was that one deal is a trite corporate dealing that'll only result in employee turn-over, and not company dispersal (Blizzard), and the other was a relatively larger company acquiring another during a time where the industry was somewhat stable, but its future uncertain (EA & Origin).
The 'risk' was that the EA/Origin deal could have gone down-hill quick, financially, had the video game industry not experienced an unprecented boom (consider the amount of money circulating the industry between 1990 and today). They didn't burn, and there wasn't many signs that they would. Still, there was more to worry about in that situation than the Activision/Vivendi situation. That's big business. I don't see how Blizzard could get lost in that. However, I could see how Origin could have back then.
My 'high risk' statement wasn't specific to EA/Origin. My point was, hearing about video game companies merging today shouldn't carry the same stigma as it did a decade ago. It should have a stigma, but not the same one.
I agree. My post was in response to the subsequent statements made, and not about the article.
The 'risk' was that the EA/Origin deal could have gone down-hill quick, financially, had the video game industry not experienced an unprecented boom (consider the amount of money circulating the industry between 1990 and today). They didn't burn, and there wasn't many signs that they would. Still, there was more to worry about in that situation than the Activision/Vivendi situation. That's big business. I don't see how Blizzard could get lost in that. However, I could see how Origin could have back then.
My 'high risk' statement wasn't specific to EA/Origin. My point was, hearing about video game companies merging today shouldn't carry the same stigma as it did a decade ago. It should have a stigma, but not the same one.
I agree. My post was in response to the subsequent statements made, and not about the article.
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
The thing that bothers me about all of this is that both sides are making their claims *because they were told to*.
I don't think it even relates to Wing Commander in the slightest - for years it was internet gospel that Electronic Arts was an *evil* company that was out to get you and blargh blargh blargh with all sorts of entirely inane claims like how awful it was that they cared about *money* (and were good at making it). And yeah, I'm sorry to break it to you, but we were all dopes for repeating that crap.
... and now it works the other way around: EA's PR team picked up on this and put X-unit-of-money into convincing people that they'd *changed*. You don't have to be a whale biographer to see that this happened: this mea-culpa-plus-look-how-we-are-now language suddenly appeared in Riccitiello's speeches and the company's press releases and how they announced new titles and blargh blargh blargh you're all just buying the line from the *other* side now.
(I'll also note that everyone always gives someone elses favorite game as their example when complaining about that 'sequel' mentality. The Ultima fans will tell you it was cheap of EA to keep putting out Wing Commander after Wing Commander, the action game fans will tell you EA is *evil* for putting out a new sports game each year and so forth. When you actually go to a Wing Commander fan or a Sims fan or a whatever fan they'll tell you that their favorite game is great and they enjoy playing it and why can't the company put them out faster? So lets not be full of ourselves: more than anything we want rote Wing Commander 7, 8 and 9 like the football guys want Madden 09, 10 and 11. I also guarantee you that for any year you pick we can find both a set of annual sports game and an uninspired action title and also something truly weird and outstanding that might not even have caught on. They do *a lot* of stuff.)
Remember - Origin didn't do very well in the years after the acquisition. Just because we consider a game a classic doesn't mean it sold well. The Worlds of Ultima line crashed and burned in a manner they'd never experienced before, Strike Commander (which EA thought was ready to ship and would sell like Wing) ended up having 18 more months of development and both the 'numbered' smash hit serieses that had been making up for all the experimentation in the past (Ultima, Wing Commander) were all at the beginning of *three year* development cycles (versus twelve month cycles for previous iterations).
(Then games like Strike and Privateer ultimately sold but not in a manner that justified their huge development costs -- it's no wonder that the end of that period is when you suddenly have a whole bunch of make-money-fast projects like Academy, Origin FX and a whole boatload of SNES ports.)