Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jonathan S. Fox]

Found it, from 2005, "The Conquest of Origin". Not an interview with Garriott, as it turns out, though he is quoted in it.

I don't mind dragging it up, because it's an interesting article. It goes into depth about how Origin sold out to EA and had its soul crushed, for anyone interested in the subject.

Relevant excerpt:

Spector: "For the first couple of years, EA's acquisition of Origin changed the place for the better in nearly every way. EA brought some much needed structure to our product greenlight and development processes. And we certainly got bigger budgets! We were able to do more and cooler things than we'd been able to do before. In most ways, though, EA gave us a lot of rope - enough to hang ourselves, as it turned out!"

Garriott: "We doubled the size of the company from 200 to 400 that first year. We went from 5-10 projects to 10-20, and staffed those projects almost entirely with inexperienced people. It won't surprise you to learn those projects were not well managed. That was totally Origin's fault. We failed, and we ended up killing half of those products. That's probably what set up the EA mentality that 'Origin is a bunch of [deleted],' pardon my French."

Spector: "Once it became apparent we were getting a little crazy, EA started taking a firmer hand with us, integrating us into the machine in subtle and not so subtle ways, and that's when things started to get a little less pleasant. Every company has its politics but, in my relatively limited experience, EA was an incredibly political place - lots of empire building, folks jockeying for bigger, better jobs, competing for resources, marketing dollars and so on. And there were certainly people at EA who, let's just say, lacked confidence in Origin's development management and - less sensibly, I think - in the Austin development community in general. There were a lot of strange decisions."

Denis Loubet, artist: "Before [the purchase], the desire to keep Origin afloat did much to keep politics on the back burner. But afterwards, survival transformed into a competition at the feeding trough. As production groups became more insular, Origin fractured. That was the death of any 'Origin Culture.' It didn't help that each production head was a dictator over his team, yet each had to brown-nose EA for funding."

Steve Powers, artist and programmer: "When EA assumed control, much of the joy began to fade from the Origin company culture. It was a running joke through the company that we went from working for the Rebellion to working for the Empire. Our company had a culture that made work an incredible joy, day in and day out, even though we worked tremendously long hours. And the culture *had* to be appealing, because Origin paid a pittance. I started there at wages that were just above poverty level. EA began to bring salaries up to a competitive level for the region, and people who were equivalent to hobbyists were suddenly in a career. It was no longer a nerdy fraternity; it was business."

Garriott: "There are people at EA to this day who I respect either as brilliant or at least well-intentioned. [CEO] Larry Probst was often not supportive of the things I was doing, but I respect Larry because he was always clear, rational and consistent in his lack of support. I felt [Chief Creative Officer] Bing Gordon understood sometimes; I always felt Bing's intent was to help me do my best. Nancy Smith [Executive VP, North American Publishing] empathized and desired success for all at Origin. [But] there were others who got into politics, who very clearly would get into the mode of 'Your success will work against my success. EA caring about you will mean they care less about me.' The politicians began to look at us as the enemy, and would actively work against us."

[Neonivek]

So basically... It was both their faults.

[Jonathan S. Fox]

So basically... It was both their faults.

Sounds about the short of it.

The article is a lot more hostile toward EA than I remember, which doesn't come as a huge shock, given that I read it seven years ago. It largely blames EA for Origin being spiritually broken, though it does confirm that Origin mismanaged the influx of money that being acquired gave them, and that Spector and Garriott blame themselves for it. It also adds the interesting backstory of Origin struggling to be profitable before EA.

The really notable thing I was wrong about is my characterization of Garriott saying EA was "more than fair with them" -- given that he actually described EA as having "evil elements" within it, I would not consider that an appropriate characterization of his comments in that article.

[Neonivek]

It does seem to fit into my theory that often the best gameplay has come out of limitations.

[Capital Fish]

We're talking about an article written over half a decade discussing stuff that happened 10-20 years ago. The EA of 1992 (when Origin was bought) was a vastly different beast from both the EA of 2004 (When Origin was shut down) and the EA of 2012 (When they were voted the Worst Company in America).

Also: This may be an example of my anti-EA bias, but every time I read "EA" and "Origin" together, I just can't help but be reminded of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_%28content_delivery%29

[Alpheus]

I love it when people bring up the fundamental attribution error.  Makes me think those psychology classes I took weren't a total waste

[Reelya]

For anyone interested, this article about the original aborted Duke Nukem Forever "production process" is a gripping read. How to burn through $20 million and not have a game to show for it ...

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/fail_duke_nukem/